Which begs the question, is Paul a closet racist or Confederate?

After watching adammm's video link I once again agree with Paul.

Its a big mistake for a Presidential candidate to walk away from that question when he can speak directly to the issues, as he does there.

He has a million times, nutcase. He even says in the "interview," "well my answer is the same thin I said to you twice yesterday."

I'd be pretty POed too, if I can be the least racist/homophobic guy (including raid-em-and-lock-em-up Obama) in the race, and they keep bringing this up while they also try to ignore a possible caucus win.

The question has been answered so it was obvious this was just a hit piece by someone masking as a journalist. No integrity in the line of questioning? Time to move on and get the real message out.

"I didn't write them, I didn't read them at the time and I disavow them."

They were released with your name on them, which means you are irresponsible if not complicit. I will take your word that you didn't know, which makes you unqualified to be President. It was YOUR NEWSLETTER! YOu had a responsiblity to make sure anything with your name on it represented your views.

#6 - I agree, Kanrei.
He didn't seem that testy, all in all. But yeah, there's a newsletter with your name on it with clearly racist content, and you didn't know about it and didn't read it? You're either lying or incompetent.

A recently surfaced video from 1995 shows the GOP presidential hopeful discussing controversial newsletters that he claimed this week he didn't even read until about 2001.

In the resurfaced C-SPAN interview, Paul " then out of office and trying to return to Congress â€" describes the "educational" newsletters and seems to be knowledgeable of their contents.

"It covered a lot about what was going on in Washington: financial events, especially some of the monetary events, since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee and am still very interested in that subject," said the libertarian-leaning lawmaker.

"This newsletter dealt with it. This has to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do."

In 1996, Paul told the Dallas Morning News that the material was accurate but had merely been taken out of context. (excerpts)

Not being an avid Paul supporter, I have to say that this is no different than Obama joining Rev Wright's church to win an election in Chicago. Or saying that he did not know about Bill Ayers past when they became friends. That Obama did not know that Rev Wright was a racist could also be said that he was a racist. This was and will be used against Paul time and time again. Just as Fox used Rev Wright and Bill Ayers against Obama time and time again, the real differance here is that it will be Fox and NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC that will be the broken record on something that happened 20 years ago and has been answered a dozen times. The reason I included FOX is because the good ole boys of the RNC will not support Paul and to me that is almost as good as having a third party candidate with a real chance of winning, if he was to get the Repug nomination.

I agree with Kanrei.

He's unqualified to be POTUS but for others reasons in addition to this crapola.

lol... I love how she tells Wolf, "I know you've asked Paul about this before...." later Wolf: "... but I know you HAD to ask him about this!"

Because 20 years of answers are just not good enough.

Murphy: The guy you want is no more qualified. Every other guy on the stage is in a flip flop paradise and none of them come without problems.

I'm pulling for Ron Paul and I'll admit it's concerning to me that the statements appeared. But the guy has been answering the same questions about it for 20 years and some CNN hack acts like she's reporting on breaking news that's just ahead of the wire rahter than 20 year old news.

Get over it. Now that Backmann, Perry, Cain and soon to be Newt are out of the way ... there's really only Paul left as a real threat so we're going to drag out this crap and blow it up to try and shoot him down. He answered the question and she kept on about it... Ron Paul's reaction is in no way a surprise. He's not going to sit there and have some high school new letter reporter keep on about it.

"They were released with your name on them, which means you are irresponsible if not complicit. I will take your word that you didn't know, which makes you unqualified to be President. It was YOUR NEWSLETTER! YOu had a responsiblity to make sure anything with your name on it represented your views.

#6 | Posted by kanrei"

Exactly. If your name was on it, you have some responsibility for it. If you had racist idiots writing for you and didn't monitor what they were putting out under your name, that shows a lack of responsibility in addition to poor judgement.

If Paul took some responsibility for it, we could believe he learned from his mistakes and wouldn't repeat them. Aren't Libertarians supposed to be big on personal responsibility? Or does that just apply to those born into poverty?

More yellow journalism as well from Dorothy Rabinowitz WSJ opinion piece yesterday attacking Ron Paul. So basically, the character assasination has begun from the media. And let's be clear about Ms. Rabinowitz. She's a rabid Zionist American Jew who's part of the Neocon invasion of American politics. I take Ms. Rabinowitz with a grain of salt, but it shows you how crooked and corrupt the major media is, and it's not by coincidence that Borger and Rabinowitz are both Jewish. Paul is staunchly anti-Fed, and the Fed is ruled by the Jewish banking cartel. That's clear!

The statements were written in newsletters that were called Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report,

So he either was aware of them and is a racist, or was not aware of what was being written in his name and is a stupid fool.

So long Ron, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

So basically, the character assasination has begun from the media.

The corporate media have picked Romney as the candidate long ago. If you believed they were going to allow you to have a say in who is nominated from either party you are a fool.

#15 but at the same time you will parrot them to help keep any candidate that is not preselected by the media off the ticket.

I agree with Kanrei.

He's unqualified to be POTUS but for others reasons in addition to this crapola.

#10 | Posted by MURPHY

He is just as "qualified" to drive as the rest of the clowns in the republican clown car.

More yellow journalism as well from Dorothy Rabinowitz WSJ opinion piece yesterday attacking Ron Paul. So basically, the character assasination has begun from the media. And let's be clear about Ms. Rabinowitz. She's a rabid Zionist American Jew who's part of the Neocon invasion of American politics. I take Ms. Rabinowitz with a grain of salt, but it shows you how crooked and corrupt the major media is, and it's not by coincidence that Borger and Rabinowitz are both Jewish. Paul is staunchly anti-Fed, and the Fed is ruled by the Jewish banking cartel. That's clear!

#13 | Posted by Redsoxfan at 2011-12-23 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Free advice: If you're trying to make the point that Ron Paul is not part affiliated with racist nutjobs, your frequent conspiratorial references to Jews isn't helping your case.

*aren't* helping your case, not isn't... sheesh...

They were released with your name on them, which means you are irresponsible if not complicit. I will take your word that you didn't know, which makes you unqualified to be President. It was YOUR NEWSLETTER! YOu had a responsiblity to make sure anything with your name on it represented your views.

#6 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-23 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

It wasn't his newsletter, he wasn't the editor and he didn't own it. He sold his name to it and this is nothing in comparison to what we're seeing from the any of the other candidates on either side.

If this is enough to derail his candidacy, not his actions or his words, then so be it. The side of America that wants to see Obama or one of the other republican crooks leading the country will be happy with the coming years.

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2011-12-23 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Romney was a wet dream for the Repubs in 2008, and he crashed and burned back then. What the fuck has he done since?!?!? Romney is a paper tiger with zero credibility, can't stand firm on one issue, and bring no value to the table.

I like to see Romney lead this country in 2012. The same shit stain that is excellent at job destruction when this country needs job creation the most.

He's just another puppet for the corporate elite who could care less about the unemployed here in the states. Their bread and butter is their marketing maching abroad. Do you think Romney is going to stand in their way? If you do, then you my friend are fool.

Free advice: If you're trying to make the point that Ron Paul is not part affiliated with racist nutjobs, your frequent conspiratorial references to Jews isn't helping your case.

#18 | Posted by cbob at 2011-12-23 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey Bob....if Ron Paul was known to be affiliated with racists dating back to the 80's, then why is this shit all of sudden becoming news??? Wouldn't this news alone have derailed his earlier attempts at the Presidency? Nice try Bob. Save the advice for yourself.

Jew conspiracies? There's too much evidence to discourage me otherwise.

"It wasn't his newsletter, he wasn't the editor and he didn't own it. He sold his name to it and this is nothing in comparison to what we're seeing from the any of the other candidates on either side."

"Selling your name" to a newsletter is a pretty irresponsible, stupid thing to do. When racist shit gets published under your named afterwards, that illustrates why. Paul would do well to take responsiblity and admit to the mistake instead of continually denying any association with stuff that published with his name on it. I don't think he's a racist but I think that showed a lack of judgement.

"If this is enough to derail his candidacy.."

What candidacy? The GOP will kill him before they nominate him. If he'd run on his own, I'd consider voting for him but he seems content to lend his support to a party that doesn't take him seriously.

Claiming the question has already been answered is a cop out. Paul hasn't faced serious media scrutiny on the newsletters during this campaign. He's on the verge of winning Iowa. He has to answer tough questions about his past just like Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and everybody else in the running.

Paul's refusal to identify the author of the newsletter articles makes it impossible for me to fully believe it isn't him.

Hey white folks,

If you are going to be racist in your younger years, that's cool, we understand the warmth derived from the cocoon of racial hatred. But then do not come and put lipstick on a pig and declare yourself non-racist. That ship has sailed and you only insult our intelligence.

It would be like Minister Farrakhan putting his best foot forward and asking for the white and jewish vote.

How many whites and jews would give him the benefit of the doubt?

I'm SURE many on this board would forgive all. LOL!!

Who the fuck cares...

I'll do what I did last election; vote for Paul in the primaries, and for Obama in the general... unless by some miracle Paul gets the GOP nod...

The fact that the media and the GOTP hate him so much is damn near a good enough reason to vote for him regardless...

Who the fuck cares...

I do.

#27 Fresno...

Why???

Paul fired the staffer that was responsible. End of story.

Eric Dondero (Rittberg) - Ron Paul's ex-senior staff guy.
Ron fired him and Eric hasn't gotten over it yet.

He lies about most things.
He supposedly knows 15 different languages but got caught in a lie of when he learned Spanish.

He was supposed to run against Ron Paul, but dropped out of the race when another Republican decided to run for office.

He supported Giuliani and even has deluded himself into thinking Giuliani has libertarian leanings.......That is one of the bigger stretches of the imagination.

He supported Giuliani and Ron's CD14 opponent so much he has given them huge amounts of money.......ok, that's a lie, he has given them nothing for their campaigns.

He either goes by Dondero or Rittberg.... no one can figure out when he will use which name. He likes to call himself a half jew, whatever that means. Though he isn't a practicing Jew at all. He has even deluded himself so much that he says Ron Paul demanded he wear a yarmulke to a political function. Can you see RP demanding someone do something like that?

Needless to say he started off as a car driver for RP and has delusions of grandeur that he single handedly got Ron Paul elected to office the second time RP ran in 1996.

He was one of the people that started the Republican Liberty Caucus, and they got rid of him.

So far he is just a gadfly that won't stop writing nasty articles about Ron Paul, using whatever time he has to write nonsense in his attempts to get him out of office.

Oh, the final thing about Eric is on his libertarian blog he still has a praise that Ron gave him years ago. This is way nutty, in that if RP is supposed to be this big nut job, wouldn't he want to distance himself from him?

He is just a sad little man with no life unless he is the center of attention.

This man wants to run for the POTUS and you don't understand why this is relevant. Despite what your father taught you he is not running for President of white america.

BTW, we are only two races that he will oversee, how is his Asian and Latino inclusiveness. These are american questions.

The fact that this even has to said displays a stunning lack perceptiveness or it shows a rather cynical absence of intellectual honesty.

Borger defended asking about statements that “are pretty incendiary.”

“Because of people like you,” Paul said, later adding a “Goodbye” as he disconnected his microphone.

-From the article

Interesting response from Paul. Sort of quantum physical in nature. He seems to be saying that if there was no one to observe his newsletter there'd never be anything offensive about it.

"If Paul took some responsibility for it, we could believe he learned from his mistakes and wouldn't repeat them."

A simple editorial in the following issue disavowing them would have done it. Coming back 20 years later and saying he never read them, not so much.

As for him denying responsibility because he sold his name to them, sorta whorish.

"He's just another puppet for the corporate elite". Take that back, sir! Romney is no puppet for the corporate elite. He IS the corporate elite.

I'd have more respect for the guy if he wasn't running as a Republican. If he's a Libertarian, he should run as one.

Damn! I agree. #34

HE had to know. Nor did he sue for misrepresentation.

Which begs the question, is Paul a closet racist or Confederate?

#1 | Posted by nutcase

Are you and RCade and the other Liberal morons in the press completely stupid? Is this all you can come up with? A fake story about Ron Paul being a racist?

Your credibility is shot!

It's painful to watch you idiots harp on this!!!

After watching adammm's video link I once again agree with Paul.

Its a big mistake for a Presidential candidate to walk away from that question when he can speak directly to the issues, as he does there.

#3 | Posted by nutcase

Sorry Nutcase... didn't read this one.

"Sorry Nutcase... didn't read this one."

Your credibility is shot!

Its a big mistake for a Presidential candidate to walk away from that question when he can speak directly to the issues, as he does there.

#3 | Posted by nutcase

Actually, it's a sign of leadership.

He was being badgered and he took control of the situation.

He is a far far better leader than the last 3 presidents.

"Selling your name" to a newsletter is a pretty irresponsible, stupid thing to do. When racist shit gets published under your named afterwards, that illustrates why. Paul would do well to take responsiblity and admit to the mistake
#23 | Posted by Sully

He did say he made a mistake. He said he wished it didn't happen.

Let's see...

Ron Paul's disassociated hate-speech?

or

Barak Obama's close association with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers

If the Left is looking for the real non-bigot, they should pick Ron Paul...

Don't you think?

Obama's close association

the real non-bigot

If you want to help your candidate, stop posting.

"The question has been answered so it was obvious this was just a hit piece by someone masking as a journalist."
#5 | Posted by Dirk "

If CNN fires her at least she can get a job at World Net Daily.

The video is no longer available. Why?

The video is no longer available. Why?

#44 | Posted by Washboard

It was because the reporter was obviously badgering Ron Paul. She looked like an amateur.

It was a huge fail for CNN, for MSM.

Paul's critics even go a far to say he hates babies.

"He did say he made a mistake. He said he wished it didn't happen."

That's not taking responsibility. If I get struck by lightning walking down the street on a clear day, I could say "I wish that didn't happen". Wouldn't mean I think its my fault for walking down the street on a clear day.....

Taking responsibility involves acknowledging that the reason why racist crap was printed in a newsletter with his name on it is because Paul made some mistakes. He didn't check the people out. He didn't give them any guidelines. He's didn't read the newsletter. These are the things he could have done to make sure it didn't happen.

"I wish it didn't happen" is not taking responsibility. Aren't Libertarians big on personal responsibility? Now you don't even know how to do it? Why should I even have to explain this to a Paul supporter?

Here's the link on the HuffPo.

That's not taking responsibility.
#47 | Posted by Sully

He didn't read the racist article until 10 years later.

What do you think he should have done?

Taking responsibility involves acknowledging that the reason why racist crap was printed in a newsletter with his name on it is because Paul made some mistakes.

He did this.

Face it. You don't like him. Ron Paul successfully defended himself and cleared his name a long time ago and successfully handled this "journalist"

If you think that he needs to "Be MORE Responsible" for it, then you are never going to get it because he's already taken responsibility for it.

You can continue to hate him for it. It's a free country. I've seen others hate for irrational reasons.

However, I and the growing number of Ron Paul supporters think you're wrong.

He's not a racist and a challenge you to find something other than that he's a White Guy that says he is a racist.

All White Men are racist, right?

"I wish it didn't happen" is not taking responsibility. Aren't Libertarians big on personal responsibility? Now you don't even know how to do it? Why should I even have to explain this to a Paul supporter?

#47 | Posted by Sully

Moreover,

Taking Responsibility. What do you suggest he do that would satisfy you and the other the haters?

What do you suggest he do that would satisfy you and the other the haters?

#50 | Posted by Eddie at

Get on television, take personal responsibility, and offer a heartfelt apology.

It may be the only way that Paul, er, can prove that HE is not a hater.

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's positions on the Drug War, Capital punishment, monetary and foreign policy would do more for the poor and minorities in this country than Obama ever will.

Trying to paint RP as a racist in the face of his positions is disingenuous.

Actually, it's a sign of leadership.

Running away from a reporter asking tough questions is the opposite of leadership.

Actually, it's a sign of leadership.

Running away from a reporter asking tough questions is the opposite of leadership.

#53 | Posted by rcade

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit!!!

She was obviously badgering him. He successfully answer every single one of her questions and intelligently "answered" the stupid questions.

He successfully discovered a trap and took control of it. He answered all the questions with bleeding and stunning truth and then walked away leaving her looking like the ass she is. Are you an ass too? Just asking.

It was an epic win on his part and a tragic fail for this "journalist".

He is very Presidential and behaving that way before being nominated to run.

Just think what he can do for our country after he's elected?

Get on television, take personal responsibility, and offer a heartfelt apology.

It may be the only way that Paul, er, can prove that HE is not a hater.

#51 | Posted by Zed

He's done that. You're not paying attention.

www.youtube.com/watch?
feature=player_embedded&v=Tgjs58i7qeg#!

He didn't know this was happening until 10 years later.

He's not going to apologize as if he agreed with it at the time, but he did admit he made a mistake of not watching it close enough. He was a practicing doctor at the time. Do you know how all consuming being a doctor is? Think about it.

He's very smart. If he apologized in the way you want him to do, that would be admitting that he knew about it at the time.

She was obviously badgering him.

So Paul can't handle being badgered by a reporter without taking his mic off and fleeing?

He's done that. You're not paying attention

56 | Posted by Eddie

That's the trouble, fella. I do pay attention. If his apology hasn't reached me, it's not travelling very far very quickly.

He's very smart. If he apologized in the way you want him to do, that would be admitting that he knew about it at the time.

#55 | Posted by Eddie at

Instead of the present situation? Where it appears he too damned stupid or too damned lazy to read his own newsletter?

The problem I have with Paul's explanation:

If he in fact never read the offensive material personally then some of his staff did. Further, some of the more sane newsletter readers would have complained to him about the content.

Its a big mistake for a Presidential candidate to walk away from that question when he can speak directly to the issues, as he does there.

#3 | Posted by nutcase

He was NEVER a candidate, just a soundbyte to sell air time.

Candidate Paul's action could focus attention to this issue, for the better or to the worse.

So, he apparently doesn't have patience or wit enough to bridge his current messaging with the meaning of outsourcing his messaging then.

How this impacts his candidacy will lay entirely at the feet of his own Republican mechanism. Fox might run with it.. CNN obviously had only two choices - admit the letters were "forged" in essence, and apologize publicly, or hand this story off to Chicago Tribune..

However, the fact that Ron Paul is pro-privatization includes the institutionalization of the criminal system - which does over-proportionally impact Black Americans. So, buyer beware.

Also, the GOP doesn't want a viable option to Romney.

Paul's popularity appears to be from the ground up, thus no media political analyst approval, but expect the moment Romney is selected that 100% Congress and Senate Republicans will step in line behind him.

However, the fact that Ron Paul is pro-privatization includes the institutionalization of the criminal system - which does over-proportionally impact Black Americans. So, buyer beware.

Well since most blacks that are incarcerated are there because of drug charges... and since Ron Paul wants to, at the very least, decriminalize MJ and maybe other things.... I'd say the Black vote should be 100% behind this guy.

And on this topic... for those that keep calling him a racist... I've heard radio interviews with him where he decries the system for jailing so many blacks because of drug charges.... so you might want to put down the propaganda and get some real fricking facts.

He's very smart. If he apologized in the way you want him to do, that would be admitting that he knew about it at the time.

#55 | Posted by Eddie at

Instead of the present situation? Where it appears he too damned stupid or too damned lazy to read his own newsletter?

#59 | Posted by Zed

You're either pulling my leg or you an idiot.

The problem I have with Paul's explanation:

If he in fact never read the offensive material personally then some of his staff did. Further, some of the more sane newsletter readers would have complained to him about the content.

#60 | Posted by Zed

It only happened once! In a single edition of the newsletter!

You're full of shit until you find out all the facts for yourself.

God Damned idiot Liberals. Fuck 'EM ALL!!!

Merry Christmas.

In that spirit I say God Bless Eddie and racists like Ron Paul.

Riiiiigghhttt

And good ole American lovers like Jeremiah Write and Bill Ayers.

Nice try dumbass. LOL!!!

BTW, Obama never apologized for these and we can prove these connections.

"However, the fact that Ron Paul is pro-privatization includes the institutionalization of the criminal system - which does over-proportionally impact Black Americans. So, buyer beware."
Well since most blacks that are incarcerated are there because of drug charges... and since Ron Paul wants to, at the very least, decriminalize MJ and maybe other things.... I'd say the Black vote should be 100% behind this guy.
And on this topic... for those that keep calling him a racist... I've heard radio interviews with him where he decries the system for jailing so many blacks because of drug charges.... so you might want to put down the propaganda and get some real fricking facts.
#64 | Posted by captjimmyjames at 2011-12-24 09:37 PM

First off, let's presume that I'm not racist. Would that change the way my post comes across? For instance, I might have implied that privatization isn't under the direct administration of the President, but allowing a cabal of parasite industry to flourish in lieu of government institutions. Maybe I mean that the current judicial and criminal systems are privatized to some extent and intentionally manufacturing a criminal class to keep themselves employed? Either way, you've apparently never read any of my prior posts on these topics.

According to Ron Paul 14% of Blacks use drugs, 36% arrested are Black, and 63% who end up in prison are Black. This seems understated, even over racial averages of all States combined. So, if anything Ron Paul appears to be willing to stem the furthering of these evil Republican privatization schemes that invent American "citizens" who cannot vote.

One very real problem I have is the Republican label - precisely why is Ron Paul Republican? This is looooong past the Republicans of Lincoln, so why associate with that party as it exists today? Kameradschaft = status quo.

Regardless your misunderstanding my post and accusing me of implying Paul is racist, the more I learn about Paul the more I find his views appealing. So, naturally I'm exceptionally skeptical. Thusfar, there are no "candidates" worthy of my vote. In fact, everything points to Barack Obama as the sole proposition - doesn't that seem directed? If Paul were elected, would that seriously disrupt the existing infrastructure for the better?

Now that you better understand how to read, give me reason to vote Republican. ANYONE, give me good reason.

According to Ron Paul 14% of Blacks use drugs, 36% arrested are Black, and 63% who end up in prison are Black. This seems understated, even over racial averages of all States combined. So, if anything Ron Paul appears to be willing to stem the furthering of these evil Republican privatization schemes that invent American "citizens" who cannot vote.

Actually, that's the wrong way to calculate - it should be average arrests based on population density and types of crime. Sorry for falling into that racially insensitive loophole.

One very real problem I have is the Republican label
#69 | Posted by redlightrobot

Ron Paul is very smart. He realizes that there is a 2-party system in our government and the only way to make change is to join one of them and change it.

He's very successful at doing that. It's called the Tea Party which is bringing hope and change to all of us.

One very real problem I have is the Republican label
#69 | Posted by redlightrobot
Ron Paul is very smart. He realizes that there is a 2-party system in our government and the only way to make change is to join one of them and change it.
He's very successful at doing that. It's called the Tea Party which is bringing hope and change to all of us.
#71 | Posted by Eddie at 2011-12-25 03:30 PM

Youch, I hope to hell not.

Ron Paul is very smart.

For a racist, perhaps.

He's very successful at doing that. It's called the Tea Party which is bringing hope and change to all of us.

#71 | Posted by Eddie at 2011-12-25 03:30 PM | Reply

The Tea Party just doesn't realize it hates Paul yet, EDDIE. If he wins Iowa, the reasons to hate him will be discovered.

Eddie isn't very bright but he will do as he is told.

If Ron Paul were a smart man, he'd have read his own newsletter, to make sure his staff wasn't just printing diet recipes, or to see if racists were using it to piss on.

"he will do as he is told"