brvheart 1,752 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 or.... at least will be shortly.This is the expose that will inevitably kill himThese are the quotes that will do itps. I don't want to jump to conclusions that he did or said those things, but I think that the damage is probably irreparable.EDIT: HE JUST RESPONDED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE... here. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 DARN!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Jariso13 1 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Good Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 DARN!!!! GoodThis is exactly why it's bad that he's out... he gets people talking about he's ideas. So sad.We desperately need someone to come to Washington with Paul's political ideas that isn't a squirrely weird-o conspiracy freak. Oh... and hard core racist... allegedly. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 OP edited with his response. About an hour ago I followed Ron Paul outside the Radisson in Manchester, NH to get his response to James Kirchick's explosive New Republic piece, "Angry White Man." The article goes through the Texas Republican's newsletters from the 1970s through the 1990s, and finds dozens of offensive comments about gays, blacks, and other targets.I was told by Paul's staff it was old news and he didn't want to talk about it, but I asked the candidate a few questions as he moved to his car.Here's a transcript: reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic's article about your newsletters? Ron Paul: All it is--it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff. reason: Why don't you release all the old letters? Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history. reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...? Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news. reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it? Paul: No, I never talked to them. reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King? Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that. reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter? Paul: No.This will not satisfy people shocked by the Kirchick piece, but Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned.This is exactly right, and the 2nd half of the bolded sentence is the problem with the media, it's complete opinion written as fact. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama.This place is literally next door to me. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 He's right though, it is old news. I've read his response to this stuff before, he didn't write it and claims not to endorse it. However, you probably wouldn't find these quotes in my newsletter. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I was rooting for him to do well enough to decide to run third party and take away votes away from the Republicans come the Presidential Election. I don't agree with everything he stands for, like isolating ourselves, but you are right that he got people talking and there is nothing wrong with that. Still think he is a nutbag but I respect what he tried to do. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I've seen these quotes before, and if you watch him talk, it's clear that they are either 1) not his words, or 2) taken out of context in such a way as to make completely non-racist remarks look racist. I guess this is good news for Paul, he's finally made enough of a splash that the dirty politics has been aimed at him.Anyone who has followed him or listened to him speak can see that he is not a racist. This is just a bitter smear piece by a proponent of the status quo. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I've seen these quotes before, and if you watch him talk, it's clear that they are either 1) not his words, or 2) taken out of context in such a way as to make completely non-racist remarks look racist. I guess this is good news for Paul, he's finally made enough of a splash that the dirty politics has been aimed at him.Anyone who has followed him or listened to him speak can see that he is not a racist. This is just a bitter smear piece by a proponent of the status quo.Which brings up the question, who does it benefit most. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I guess this is good news for Paul, he's finally made enough of a splash that the dirty politics has been aimed at him.Yeah, well I don't know if this qualifies as dirty politics. I mean the guy does have some pretty blatant racist remarks in his newsletter, printed under his own name. Even if he later disavowed them and claims not to have written them, it's probably fair game for people to hear about this. Link to post Share on other sites
KONGOS 0 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Those remarks were from a 1992 collective newsletter with Paul's name attached to it. I'm not saying he's not responsible for the words that were written, but he did immediately clarify and reassure he has no racist intent. He said "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them.....It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around....I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing...we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."He also says on the subject of racism:"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual 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 intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.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. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism." Link to post Share on other sites
wwmoon85 0 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I don't agree with everything he stands for, like isolating ourselvesThere's a difference between isolationism and nonintervention. Ron Paul supports nonintervention but not isolationism. He explains this in one of the republican debates. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 There's a difference between isolationism and nonintervention. Ron Paul supports nonintervention but not isolationism. He explains this in one of the republican debates.I watched the debate, he didn't sell me on his view not being isolationism. No biggie anyway, he won't win. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I wish I had known the man hated Jews, blacks and queers before my state caucused. Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I wish I had known the man hated Jews, blacks and queers before my state caucused. Sigh.$5 and I will go and vote for him when it is our turn since my candidate won't be on our ballot thanks to the Michigan Democratic Party being complete utter retards. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 $5 and I will go and vote for him when it is our turn since my candidate won't be on our ballot thanks to the Michigan Democratic Party being complete utter retards.Who's your candidate? Did I miss something big..? Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Who's your candidate? Did I miss something big..?probably kucinich. steve is a gd liberal. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Who's your candidate? Did I miss something big..?I guess Obama would be my choice. Michigan wanted to move it's primary up but didn't want to do it the official way. Instead of going through the correct channels and getting it changed or something they just did whatever they wanted to do and so most candidates decided they didn't want to be a part of it since it was done the wrong way so we basically got screwed. I don't the whole deal, my wife does since she involved in Michigan politics. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 probably kucinich. steve is a gd liberal.I am pretty moderate I think. I like Obama and I like Huckleberry.Kucinich was probed by aliens. That is just odd. But his wife is pretty hot... Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I am pretty moderate I think. I like Obama and I like Huckleberry.Kucinich was probed by aliens. That is just odd. But his wife is pretty hot...YOU WILL VOTE KUCINICH AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.his wifes hot? I need to look into this. and I can't say anything, I've actually started liking ron paul a little bit. I would never admit that in public, though. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 it all becomes clear now... Link to post Share on other sites
grocery_mony 8 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Id hit it! Link to post Share on other sites
KONGOS 0 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I watched the debate, he didn't sell me on his view not being isolationism. No biggie anyway, he won't win.He's for absolute free trade (with the world obv) and is for lifting many of the embargoes and sanctions we've implemented against certain countries. How is that isolationism? Non-intervention is the correct term. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now