Is Ron Paul A Man Filled With Hate?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jan 8, 2008.

  1. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

    an excerpt:

    In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.


    From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
     
  2. Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

    January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

    “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

    “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
     
  3. What lawsuits or injunctions did Paul file to stop the publications in his name, if they were done so without his approval or acknowledgment?

    Why are we only hearing about this now, the excuses he is making...if he knew of the problem for decades?

    Seems like he got caught and is now just trying to cover it up and wish it away...


     
  4. ive known about the fake smear for a long time... i guess you dont follow politics that closely. this is old news. i predicted this after the first debate he won, that some filthbags would try to use these lies. they hate us and our freedoms... they will do this and if it doesn't knock him out they will do much worse. this was brought up this summer though.

    jamie kirchick is a well known yellow journalist with zero credibility. jamie is trying to protect foreign aid, we are talking billions of dollars.
     
  5. You are not answering the questions posed, i.e. why Paul did nothing for years about stopping something being offered in his name....and your response is that you are going down an ad hominem attack on the messenger.

    Amazingly similar to the tactics of Fox News...

    "they hate us and our freedoms... they will do this and if it doesn't knock him out they will do much worse."

    Right out of Karl Rove's playbook....

     
  6. dude..... did you get beat up a bunch as a kid? we call that sarcasm... i am a self confessed smartass if you havent noticed.
     
  7. Yes, I have noticed that you are a smart ass.

    I also noticed that you failed to answer the questions posed...

     
  8. and you never answered my question i posed months ago about which candidate you supported. you are too big of a wuss. but we know it is either CFR hillary or CFR obama. good job ZZzzzz.... the CFR does hate our guts.. no sarcasm there.. they openly talk about ending our sovereignty and keeping us in illegal useless wars for a 100 yrs.

    and you just lick their nuggets. what is wrong with you? are you that brainwashed by your scientology cult?
     
  9. I have answered your question before:

    I don't support any of them, I have said that before, will say it again. Would not give a dime to any of them until they say their first act as president will be to stop the abuse of executive privilege and reduce the power of the presidency.

    All I see is a bunch of politicians trying to the get same power as Bush has, and then using it for their own political purposes.

    Now, why didn't Ron Paul file a lawsuit or injunction to stop the publishing of a newsletter in his name?

    Why is he only now trying to defend what could have been easily dealt with decades ago?

     
  10. ZZz,

    This dirt that came up on Ron Paul, reminds me of the same kind of stuff your democrat party was claiming about Pat Buchanan in the 1990s.
     
    #10     Jan 8, 2008