RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

Darla said:
No, he is a racist, and these are vile thoughts, and you have opened some eyes here, though nothing will ever open all eyes.
Click to expand...

I have no illusion about opening everyone's eyes. It is people of conscience who should be made aware of what this man is, who he associates with, and what he represents. Once informed, people of conscience will make up their own minds.

Ron Paul is a snake oil salesman, nothing more.
 
"These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. "They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."

I am reading the whole Salon interview, and I think this paragraph bears repeating, especially the part I have bolded.

He didn't disavow these disgusting, scummy, racist things said in his own newsletter (and by the way, those things are never going to be in the Darla newsletter, whether I am "on vacation" or not, so stick that BS excuse guys ok?) because his political advisers told him not to?

So, his political advisors felt that not disavowing these lowlife, racist pig comments would play better in Tex-ass, and obviously they were correct, and Mr. Integrity himself, Ron Paul went along to get along, huh?

Yeah.
 
Faced with this "right in your face undeniable truth", I can't help but notice Paul supporters disappearance from the conversation.
 
blackascoal said:
Perhaps you should slow down on admonishing others about not knowing the facts. Paul has consistently voted to repeal every civil rights law he comes across, including ones to benefit minorities in institutions of higher learning.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should, as he advocates handling it at a state level rather than federal. It is simplistic to fail to understand purposefully and present this as the whole.

As I said before that is particularly "libertarian" and is one of the places he and I disagree, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want any at all, he just wants a different level of government to handle it.
 
blackascoal said:
Faced with this "right in your face undeniable truth", I can't help but notice Paul supporters disappearance from the conversation.
Click to expand...
It might be that we don't live our life on the site and just weren't here. But heck, you can pretend that temporary absense is whatever you want to pretend it is. Claiming victory after 10 minutes of "silence" on a messageboard... Sheesh.
 
Cypress said:
. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


Is this statement really from Ron Paul???

If true, its outrageous.
Click to expand...
The report of this has been discredited. Ask Adam, he's the one with the evidence on that one.
 
Damocles said:
Perhaps you should, as he advocates handling it at a state level rather than federal. It is simplistic to fail to understand purposefully and present this as the whole.

As I said before that is particularly "libertarian" and is one of the places he and I disagree, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want any at all, he just wants a different level of government to handle it.
Click to expand...

Since federal civil rights legislation came into being in the first place because of what states were doing to miniorities, this too, does not pass the smell test. Oh there is always an excuse. I was on vacation, I didn't know that guy was going to put that in MY newsletter. I wasn't paying attention. I didn't disavow it because I was advised not to, not because I didn't want to disavow it. I'm all for protecting the rights of minorities, sadly, due to my integrity regarding the sacred CONSTITUTION (everyone genuflect please), I must vote against all federal civil rights laws.

Give me a break ok! Please, this is getting to be ridiculous.
 
Cypress said:
The you, and presumably Ron Paul, should be advocating the elimination of the USEPA, the Center for Disease Control, the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Service, the National Institute of Health, and all of our world class national science labs, like Livermore and Sandia. etc.

Do you advocate abolishing them?
Click to expand...
Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue? As well as FEMA? Hmmm... Methinks you exaggerate because it makes you feel smart, but in reality it gives the impression that you are being disingenuous purposefully.

Anyway, Interstate Commerce is one of the powers granted the Feds under the constitution, many things that you mention fall under that. But heck, you can pretend that they only fall under "General Welfare", and if it were so, then Amendments to the constitution would be necessary. Thankfully it isn't so, and pretending this isn't working here.
 
Darla said:
Funny that Paul did not mention that while he was trying to excuse it in the very recent Salon interview.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Click to expand...
Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.
 
Damocles said:
Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.
Click to expand...

Ohh, that BS story is the "proof" that it's been debunked? LMAO.

Please. And then he went on to explain why he didn't speak up and mention that he was on vacation and didn't "approve" those comments, when he was running for Congress in 96. The reason? His advisors told him not to distance himself from those racist comments.

Stop ok, this is just embarrassing now.
 
Darla said:
Ohh, that BS story is the "proof" that it's been debunked? LMAO.

Please. And then he went on to explain why he didn't speak up and mention that he was on vacation and didn't "approve" those comments, when he was running for Congress in 96. The reason? His advisors told him not to distance himself from those racist comments.

Stop ok, this is just embarrassing now.
Click to expand...
No, Adam has other proof. I'll wait for his return. I understand that sometimes people aren't on and do not claim "victory" when they aren't.
 
Damocles said:
No, Adam has other proof. I'll wait for his return. I understand that sometimes people aren't on and do not claim "victory" when they aren't.
Click to expand...

He should mail it to Ron Paul, because you can tell in this recent Salon interview, Paul could really use it.
 
Darla said:
This is part of what I was telling you about? It was in his newsletter, but later, someone else wrote it, he didn't authorize it, he wasn't there, blah blah blah. Part of what doesn't past the smell test about him.
Click to expand...


It sounds bad. I don't recall ever reading this before. Wow. Not cool.
 
Darla said:
I read it only last month, I think it was, when bac first posted about it.
Click to expand...
Me too. To be honest it worried me. And still does, however I trust Adam to back up what he said earlier. That and how difficult it was to find that particular information from any source other than an editorial. It wasn't even archived in the newspaper that it was credited to.
 
blackascoal said:
Paul does, along with FEMA, the USDA and many other vital functions of a government trying to protect its citizens.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.
 
Damocles said:
Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.
Click to expand...

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?
 
Cypress said:
Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.
Click to expand...
Anybody who is opposed to it ignores the Interstate Commerce implications.

It isn't like this guy is going to get elected as President people. I stated long ago people take way too much energy to discredit an extreme longshot, even taking writing from blogs and editorials that aren't even archived on the newspaper's site itself as evidence of something heinous. I believe that those newsletters went out, I don't necessarily believe that they were the sentiments of the man in question. I get his current newsletters and there is nothing in them that gives any indication that this is in his heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top