Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 2)
Ron Paul responds to charges of racism regarding some of his old newsletters on Wolf Blitzer, CNN, Jan. 10, 2008 — See part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w
Duration : 0:4:56
[youtube 82CYNV0U_kg]
Is it legal to use Micro soft publisher 2003 clip art to create and sell my own newsletters?
Facebook comments:
25 Responses to “Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 2)”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Leave A Comment...
We want to hear from you!
Please use this site as a resource. We want you to understand what it is we can do to help. Feel free to call or fill out the contact form or join the newsletter..it rocks.
Yada Yada In the Press
-
Subscribe to our Podcast on iTunes
The money is given …
The money is given to the party at large to use, donated to charity, or set aside for the next time the candidate runs for public office (i.e. Ron Paul 2012).
If you’re so concerned, why don’t you write the Senator and ask, instead of making wild accusations.
And yes, what a thief. The man has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay, never voted to raise taxes, never taken a government-paid junket and returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
I’ll go with the …
I’ll go with the latter…. minus the “idiot” part.
Where’s the money …
Where’s the money Ron?
Tens of millions in donations before he chickened out.
What happened to that money, or has he forgotten about that too?
I’m ashamed that I fell for it. Paul is just another in a long line of shills, shame on him for stealing all those donations.
They are two …
They are two possibilities,
1. Ron Paul is a racist and a liar.
or
2. He’s an idiot to lend his own name to a new letter he doesn’t even read.
People can also be …
People can also be free to be the same. Are you not swallowing what the media served up? I knew of the letters long before the media started serving up their sound bites. The same treatment that Obama’s minister got. Sound bites that many of us agreed with. Chickens home to roost, letter or not.
Diversity is a …
Diversity is a result of freedom as exemplified by totalitarian governments. The first thing they enforce is uniformity. Any free society affords the people the freedom to be diverse. And after a person is in the spotlight, especially as a presidential candidate they do possess notoriety. Otherwise his name would’nt have been used. It was advertised as the name of a former candidate not a no name physician. I’m not discrediting him as a candidate but the public should’nt just swallow anything.
What if we were not …
What if we were not diverse? Would we by any less free? Diversity is enabled by liberty, but it is not necessary to be free. As is witnessed by your belief he was in government during the letters’ publication, the public demanded nothing but simply swallowed what they were fed.
Actually he was a …
Actually he was a practicing physician when the letters came out. His name was used as a marketing tool after his Libertarian run for the presidency in 1988. The newsletters ran from 1989 to 1994 while he was out of Congress. He lent his name for the purpose of spreading conservative libertarian philosophy. He has taken responsibility, and alas many of you use the letters as a rallying point when it is probably the liberty message that is opposed.
Ensure liberty by …
Ensure liberty by protecting the freedom of religion, culture, etc…-diversity. He was a politician otherwise why use the name? And carelessness with your name as a public official is carelessness. I can’t speak on his personal beliefs or character. But several newsletters of that nature never warranting his attention is odd. As evidenced, any negativity ociated with a politician can make or break a career. And the public demands accountability from them.
He was a politician …
He was a politician when they came out- otherwise why use his name? The hate professed in the letters was done in his name. Even I would know what is done or said with my name attached to it. I don’t claim he is hateful – I don’t personally know the man or his character. Carelessness is carelessness.One of the major ways the public gets to know a politician is through their writings, speeches, and records. Just like candidates have to ume responsibility for any ads in their name,so the words.
The government was …
The government was not designed to protect diversity… it was built to ensure liberty. Ron Paul has also never professed hate toward any group, even professing a profound respect for the man Dr. King, albeit not all of his socialist ideas. When his newsletters were out, he could hardly be considered in a position of power. Those remarks were not his, but of staff on a newsletter of which he had no editorial oversight. He umes responsibility for lending his name to the newsletter.
A person is only as …
A person is only as good as their word and their name.A person used to publicize hate or discrimination has no place in a government designed to respect and protect diversity.Dr. King never professed hate against any group of people.He also wasn’t running for the highest office in the country.I don’t know if he is racist but the fact is that inflammatory remarks made by a person in a position of power must be carefully checked.He failed to do so and doesn’t ume responsibility.
i find hes actually …
i find hes actually more direct than most of those presidential puppets,next thing you know they;re going to have clips of him using blonde jokes in his speeches and confronting him on his anti-blondness..
He did not even own …
He did not even own a controlling share; he lent his name for a fee. He made an error; so what of it? Tell me, what was in those letters so despicable that it cannot be forgiven. We worship brave men like Dr. King, and forgive his trespasses against his wife and academic integrity. Ron Paul has stood solid in his commitment to what everyone finds so easy to discard. The Constitution; if you don’t like it he says change it, don’t ignore it. A newsletter cannot dull such a common sense msg.
How about one of …
How about one of the following choices
A: hearing OPINION from broadcast and print media outlets which AFFIRM one’s own views, whichever side of the political divide it may lie,
(i) IF affirmation is what one wants most, and
(2) IF one dismisses all dissenting opinion as ‘biased’;
or
B: hearing OPINION from different sides, IF one can handle it;
or
C: separating FACT from OPINION–performing the chore by oneself, instead of demanding that everyone else do it.
1 You are free to …
1 You are free to not cast your vote–about half of the electorate do the same.
2 Notwithstanding #1, decisions can still be–and is actually–made by those who show up.
3 Ron The Gynecologist himself ‘cares’ enough to submit himself to the verdict of those in #2.
who cares all of it …
who cares all of it is pretty much rigged and bullshit soo??
CNN thinks this is …
CNN thinks this is important,but the hateful words of Reverend Wright is a distraction from the issues.Bias a**holes.Please get your news from FOX.I’m more of a liberal,but I don’t believe in pushing my views down others throats.You will never get the TRUTH from CNN.
Evidently, the …
Evidently, the electorate disagree with you–his electoral district does not mind him as Representative, but extremely few elsewhere see him fit to be President.
I agree with you on …
I agree with you on that one. I should also add that if these racially collectivist and derogatory remarks did indeed get published with his involvement or consent, then he’s finishing out the Republican nomination in an appropriate position.
ermineermine: One …
ermineermine: One man spam brigade? Yes.
The newsletters are 10-20 years old. He was just reelected to congress again.
If Ron Paul is unfit to be president, a president is unfit to lead America.
So, he barely …
So, he barely bothered to read the newsletters under his own name to see what was put under his own name?! Don’t you think for once someone would have said “uh, Ron, I think you should take a look at this…”? If he didn’t hold these opinions as you say, wouldn’t he have provided some sort of recanting or apology for some of these statements? Wouldn’t he have fired the people who wrote them. It seems he is either lazy or does actually support all that was said in the newsletters. I think both.
> his stand on …
> his stand on government
That one has never been in doubt–
> “BERATE and ABOLISH”.
“BERATE–except when it is his own incompetence that is exposed. In which case do not berate, but disclaim responsibility and make excuses.
“ABOLISH–except the posts he himself seeks to occupy.”
SAME CONCLUSION: unfit to be President.
With all due …
With all due respect, I am not accusing The Gynecologist of RACISM.
I am pointing out that this reveals
1 his MANAGERIAL INCOMPETENCE (scroll up to review the difference between this case and a case of impersonation or identity theft)
and what it inevitably reveals about
2 his fitness for the responsibilities of Chief of the Executive Branch.
. . .
Respectfully, have …
Respectfully, have you checked his voting record? Through his votes, he has sided with the NAACP fairly often on legislation they found to be important to their interests. My point is that if you were a state elected official, I believe you’d have a hard time keeping track of all the stuff sent out in your name by folks who do and don’t work for you. His record stands, pure and simple. Read his 04/16/2007 speech to Congress and that should clue you in to his stand on race and government.