Skip to comments.
Historical Society reveals Ron Paul's incendiary past [not about Paul, about the library]
Capital Times ^
| 1-11-08
| Doug Moe
Posted on 01/11/2008 5:57:37 AM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
1
posted on
01/11/2008 5:57:41 AM PST
by
SJackson
To: SJackson
decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. Paul is a racist idiot. The Paultards who follow him are worse.
2
posted on
01/11/2008 6:01:42 AM PST
by
Drango
(A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
To: Drango
yeah, I thought the library was interesting though. They’ve got great Wisconsin/midwest collections, political nutjobs seems a little off topic, but obviously highly relevant. People have been looking for these for years and where are they but Madison, WI. If I’d known that I’d have copied and posted them months ago.
3
posted on
01/11/2008 6:05:06 AM PST
by
SJackson
(If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
To: SJackson
Paul's statement this week, posted on his campaign Web site, concluded with this: "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine fulltime, 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."
He has - for over a decade.
It's as much as a non issue as Thompson lobbying for/advising to Aristide and the pro-abortion group.
I like THompson and think he did great last night, but I am getting tired of political cheerleaders and their double standards.
Curious - what did you think of Paul's response about Israel last night?
I thought it was great - we do treat them pateralistically, and I see people on FR complain all the time that we force them to get a permission slip to defend themselves.
To: SJackson
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine fulltime, 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." Ron, Ron, Ron . . . passing the buck to an alleged cabal of unnamed malfeasants isn't "taking moral responsibility."
Not since Bill Clinton informed the world that he "didn't inhale" has there been a more pathetic attempt by a lying politician to pretend that what happened didn't really happen.
If I allowed crap like that to be sent out under my name, I would lose my job.
And Ron Paul should lose his.
5
posted on
01/11/2008 6:08:58 AM PST
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: SJackson
I got a half brother that ran for city council in Madison.
He lost because he was not liberal enough.
Go figure! Damn liberals!
I would not believe a word that they say!
These are the same people who would tax the air for Global Warming and would kill a fetus just because they can.
They would vote for a Muslim and take away from me and you to give to someone else!
Socialism and Fascism are as plentiful as snow up there!
6
posted on
01/11/2008 6:16:18 AM PST
by
Bibman
(Still American and still here!)
To: GovernmentIsTheProblem
To all Paulistinians:
Your irrational rationalization of that whacko is pathetic.
Get the hook and get that idiot off the stage
7
posted on
01/11/2008 6:18:20 AM PST
by
DogandPonyShow
(America, the Light of the World.)
To: DogandPonyShow
To all Paulistinians:
Your irrational rationalization of that whacko is pathetic.
Get the hook and get that idiot off the stage
When you can't attack the ideas, make a personal attack. I'm sure you scream and curdle when the MSM does it to your candidate of choice.
To: SJackson
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine fulltime, 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."He's aware that a newsletter existed under his name. He's aware that several writers contributed. Yet he claims disinterest to the extent he had no editorial contribution.
This denial doesn't wash. If he knew of the publication and the several writers, why didn't he take action at the time? Because, I'm coming to believe, he agreed with the content. Unless Paul comes up with irrefutable evidence this was done outside of his control (statements don't cut it), he will be seen as racist and anti-semitic. And deservedly so.
9
posted on
01/11/2008 6:21:52 AM PST
by
bcsco
(Huckleberry Hound - Another dope from Hope!)
To: Drango
“Paultards?”
LMAO!
“Can you speak up? I can’t hear you in that box!”
10
posted on
01/11/2008 6:22:42 AM PST
by
Bibman
(Still American and still here!)
To: wideawake
If he goes on the defensive, he’ll be kept there the rest of the campaign.
11
posted on
01/11/2008 6:31:23 AM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: wideawake
12
posted on
01/11/2008 6:39:17 AM PST
by
ltc8k6
To: tacticalogic
If he goes on the defensive, hell be kept there the rest of the campaign. The truth about his newsletter has been revealed and thoroughly documented. The cat is out of the bag and he will be on the defensive about the vile material in those newsletters for the rest of his public life. And justly so.
There are two possibilities here:
(1) Paul is lying about not knowing what was printed in his name and Paul is thus a racist, an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist. The fact that he gladly accepts contributions from neo-Nazis and Truthers supports this interpretation. The fact that he never sued anyone over this misuse of his name and never repudiated the alleged authors of the articles publicly by name also supports this interpretation.
(2) Paul is telling the truth about not knowing what was printed in his name and Paul is thus neglectful and incompetent.
There are two ways out for Paul:
(1) To admit that he once sympathized with the views that were expressed in his own newsletter, but that he has since had a change of heart and that as far as he is concerned those writings no longer represent him or his views.
(2) Pass the buck and blame unnamed, mysterious people for submarining him.
The fact that he claims he had no idea what was being published in his name and the fact that he is blaming anonymous people for the material published in his name speaks devastatingly about his personal character.
13
posted on
01/11/2008 6:46:01 AM PST
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: ltc8k6; tacticalogic
ltc8k6 raises another good point: a number of the newsletter articles are written in the first person and make mention of personal details of Ron Paul's life, further supporting the notion that he was actively involved in the writing and publishing of the newsletter.
Few people would write pretending to be someone else in a published newsletter on such controversial topics - they would be opening themselves up to a legal nightmare.
14
posted on
01/11/2008 6:52:06 AM PST
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: wideawake
There are two ways out for Paul:I don't think there's any way "out" for him. He either has to ignore it and let the chips fall, or address it knowing that addressing one accusation will only produce more.
15
posted on
01/11/2008 6:52:27 AM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Bibman
So your argument is that Ron Paul’s personal newsletter doesn’t really exist because it has been archived in Wisconsin, where it snows.
16
posted on
01/11/2008 6:55:54 AM PST
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: GovernmentIsTheProblem
Curious - what did you think of Paul's response about Israel last night?...I thought it was great - we do treat them pateralistically, and I see people on FR complain all the time that we force them to get a permission slip to defend themselves.I didn't hear it, but if you go by what Paul says, he has no policy toward Israel, any more than he has a policy toware Korea, Taiwan, Japan or Europe. Our troops will be withdrawn from around the world and essentially we'll have no foreign policy, only trade.
If you go by his newsletters and supporters, obviously he has an anti-Israel position.
17
posted on
01/11/2008 7:06:50 AM PST
by
SJackson
(If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
To: wideawake
If I allowed crap like that to be sent out under my name, I would lose my job. Most people would. Most people would also take action as soon as it was known to them. And if you take all the racist comments out, you're still left with a businessman who sold a newsletter touting his opinions in first person commentary who didn't write it. Not nice.
18
posted on
01/11/2008 7:08:57 AM PST
by
SJackson
(If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
To: Bibman
I got a half brother that ran for city council in Madison. He lost because he was not liberal enough. Go figure! Damn liberals! I would not believe a word that they say!It's a liberal city, but his is a library at the Historical Society. They aren't saying anything, just providing a resource. Which I was surprised to find was there.
19
posted on
01/11/2008 7:11:28 AM PST
by
SJackson
(If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
To: bcsco
This denial doesn't wash. If he knew of the publication and the several writers, why didn't he take action at the time? Because, I'm coming to believe, he agreed with the content. Unless Paul comes up with irrefutable evidence this was done outside of his control (statements don't cut it), he will be seen as racist and anti-semitic. And deservedly so. Obviously he was OK with the content. He was selling it, and he garnered support from a subculture not usually approached by the political parties. It clearly answers the question of why he's accepted support and contributions from the fringe, he's been comfortable with them all along.
20
posted on
01/11/2008 7:14:28 AM PST
by
SJackson
(If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson