- #106
Moridin
- 692
- 3
He claims they where written by ghost writers.
falc39 said:This has been brought up time and time again, I think there are many other supporters who can argue for him better than I do. http://donklephant.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-realism-question-6-of-7/"
I also believe even the NY Times absolved him of the issue saying something that it was completely out of style and character. I also remember reading that the guy who did write it got fired immediately. Anyway, this thing has been debated over and over and if you haven't been convinced yet, I urge you to look at the rest of his writings/speeches (the other 99.9%) and judge for yourself if Ron Paul really could've wrote such a thing.
Moridin said:He claims they where written by ghost writers.
CaptainQuasar said:The guy who wrote those ten different quotes in seven different issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide got fired immediately? That's an oxymoron.
I would be more interested in judging Ron Paul by the rest of his writings and speeches if I hadn't heard that he's withholding some of his writings because he purportedly thinks that I can't be trusted to reasonably interpret them. (These unavailable issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide are what I'm talking about.)
"Someone authorized to speak for Ron Paul" is an accurate description of "Ron Paul's ghost writer".
They had to make fun of his statements. Go ad hominem when you don't have arguments to back yourself up! Actually, they probably do have arguments, they just haven't memorized them yet. Ron Paul was the only one up there that said ANYTHING different from the rest of the candidates.It was very noticable last night in the NH Rep debate that the other candidates were rolling their eyes when Paul made several key points. It was also obvious why: They couldn't even begin to keep up! He is about ten steps ahead of the rest, and that's why many people don't understand his mess
falc39 said:There is nothing I can say anymore to argue with this... It's nothing new under the sun, it's been debated by people over and over, I've read it on many forums. Ron Paul has explained what happened. If you don't think that is a good explanation, then you think he's a liar, which is fine, but that doesn't prove the other side of the argument either. It's still speculation. To me, those quotes are way out of character for him. It goes against 99% of everything else he says, so I believe his explanation, and that is the best judgment I can make.
I'm all for that type of logic. I think people ignore it too often. Nevertheless, actual policy matters as well. Most of what Ron Paul suggests isn't even theoretically possible, much less actually doable, but some things he wants to do he might be able to get through and that makes him very dangerous. And to me that means his supporters are not thinking clearly.falc39 said:You underestimate the supporters' reasoning. There are many factors why people support Ron Paul. One big factor is the intangibles, specifically referring to integrity, honesty, etc. You have to realize some people are so sick of dishonesty and corruption in politics.
I disagree with you on most things (including your next sentence), but I think there is a good possibility you are right about this. I don't think any sane person would believe you could get rid of most/all corporate restrictions without sending us back to the 1800s era of sweat shops, monopolies, massive city-wide fires, lead paint, etc. The judicial branch is not designed to deal with that kind of thing on its own. I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Consitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. It is very odd for a Congressman to take the position that the legislative branch is essentially pointless.Manchot said:More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing.
I find it hard to reconcile statements like this.ShawnD said:It's stuff like this that makes me really like Paul...
He doesn't have an environmental policy. He'll claim he does, but he really doesn't.
russ_watters said:I'm all for that type of logic. I think people ignore it too often. Nevertheless, actual policy matters as well. Most of what Ron Paul suggests isn't even theoretically possible, much less actually doable, but some things he wants to do he might be able to get through and that makes him very dangerous. And to me that means his supporters are not thinking clearly.
I asked before if anyone could explain exactly how in reality his environmental policy would work, but no one responded. So here's how I envision it:
Lets say for example he gets a Republican Congress that backs him in his vision. First thing they do for him is get rid of the EPA, the consumer product safety commission, the clean air act, all alternate energy funding, and a few other major impediments to businesses doing whatever the hell they want. Immediately, the country ditches all forms of clean energy, people pull the catalytic converters off their cars, and 100 new coal power plants are built. Now Ron Paul wants "market forces" and the Constitution in raw form to deal with the issue of pollution via lawsuits on Constitutional grounds. That'll make the lawyers happy - they respond to the situation by immediately suing essentially everyone in the country for everything from smoking in public to driving a car (doesn't matter what kind of car or how efficient it is - they all pollute), not to mention any product that has ever killed or injured anyone. The country will need a few hundred million more lawyers and 10x the exsiting court system, but eventually with no real economy behind it, the country will just collapse.
Next up - how I envision his tax system would work if he were able to implement it...
Do you also believe his explanation that we the public just can't be trusted to properly interpret the other issues of the Ron Paul Survival Guide? Forgive me for not wanting to leave that up to him.
I didn't say anything about him being a liar. I said that he's been dodgy and that if the ghost writer story is true - if what he said is true - it shows incompetent behavior. Respond to what I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth. If you've seen this debated so many times you ought to have some good responses to what I'm actually saying instead of setting up and knocking down straw men.
Tucker Carlson had a writer from New Republic who is rehashing the old newsletters (Ron Paul Financial Newsletter) where Ron Paul is alleged to have wrote racist remarks about blacks in the inner city of Washington, D.C. with a propensity for crime.
For the factual record however, Ron Paul has never been accused of saying a racist remark to anyone in his 20 years in Congress. There are no witnesses anywhere who have ever heard Ron Paul utter a remark that was racist in any way. He has never said a racist word in the Congressional Record nor has anyone ever recorded a racist remark from Dr. Paul.
No one in the Black Caucus in Congress has ever heard Ron Paul utter a racist remark.
For the words attributed to a 1992 newsletter, Ron Paul has apologized for these words that appeared in an issue of his newsletter, but he did not write them. He particularly regrets a remark made about Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who Ron Paul very much liked and admired. Ron Paul has never referred to Martin Luther King, Jr. in any disparaging way, and regards MLK, Jr. and Rosa Parks as heroes of his.
Ron Paul has delivered babies to black families, hispanic families, illegal immigrants, and all people. He even did so at no charge for poorer black, hispanic, white and illegal immigrants.
No black person has ever made the claim Dr. Paul was ever unkind or racist in any way, and this man has led a very public life from 1974 to 2008, 31 years!
If you have watched Dr. Paul, you know he has never adhered to any racist beliefs, actions, words or statements, and no one has ever heard him utter anything like a racist remark.
After 31 years, if no one can say they heard it, or videotaped it, or were victim of it, then it doesn't exist. The "racist" label cannot apply.
Not only is Dr. Paul no racist, but quite the contrary, he is truly the presidential candidate that cares most deeply about African-Americans, more so than any other candidate, without question.
Currently there are 600,000 African-Americans in US jails and prisons for crimes under the draconian drug laws, laws that Dr. Paul has always opposed, voted against and condemns today in his Presidential bid. Dr. Paul is well aware in his television speeches that African-Americans are being punished and targeted in the federal drug war.
Manchot said:I respect some of Paul's views, but like others, I find him too nutty. For me, what does him in is his position on antitrust law. I don't know what universe he lives in, but I would say that multinational corporations exerting undue influence on the marketplace falls under the umbrella of "interstate commerce." More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing. He doesn't understand that corporations do not have the right to exist, and that they are supposed to serve some sort of public good in exchange for the legal benefits. If he had is way, in twenty years we'd all be slaves to a company which owns everything, and which you cannot speak out against lest they stop selling you food.
russ_watters said:I disagree with you on most things (including your next sentence), but I think there is a good possibility you are right about this. I don't think any sane person would believe you could get rid of most/all corporate restrictions without sending us back to the 1800s era of sweat shops, monopolies, massive city-wide fires, lead paint, etc. The judicial branch is not designed to deal with that kind of thing on its own. I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Consitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances. It is very odd for a Congressman to take the position that the legislative branch is essentially pointless.
falc39 said:That wasn't his explanation though. He has not given an explanation on why he withholds them. I'm not going to assume that the reason why he withholds them is because the public can't be trusted. Why would you re-distribute something you regret ever being distributed in the first place?
falc39 said:It does show incompetent or careless behavior. But he addressed the issue and took moral responsibility for it, which to me is the right behavior to address it with.
falc39 said:Ron Paul is really someone who just speaks his mind, it's hard to argue that. Now assume he is racist. Considering that he is a person who is always speaking his mind, how could the above in quotes happen? That's how I make my final judgment, it just doesn't add up to his record.
Manchot said:I respect some of Paul's views, but like others, I find him too nutty. For me, what does him in is his position on antitrust law. I don't know what universe he lives in, but I would say that multinational corporations exerting undue influence on the marketplace falls under the umbrella of "interstate commerce." More generally, he's a corporatist in constitutionalist's clothing. He doesn't understand that corporations do not have the right to exist, and that they are supposed to serve some sort of public good in exchange for the legal benefits. If he had is way, in twenty years we'd all be slaves to a company which owns everything, and which you cannot speak out against lest they stop selling you food.
falc39 said:In economics, there is an opposing view on this subject. I'm probably going to read up on it in the future.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466250/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995092/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945999623/?tag=pfamazon01-20
falc39 said:I think Paul might allow states to decide such standards, I think he just wants the federal government out.
I'd disagree, especially with the general nature to that last sentence, which would appear to let the Congress do most anything a majority wanted absent conflict with one of the 'nine' amendments. The restriction is much tighter than that. The authority of the US legislature is completely spelled out in Sections http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8" of Article 1 both of which are fairly specific. And by the restraint of amendment X - "rights reserver to the states" - that is all congress is allowed to do (ignored in practice). Sections 8 & 9 do not include anything about consumer protection, say, fire safety (perhaps a bigger problem in those times than ours). The entire basis for federal consumer law rests on the single line commerce clause in Section 8: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;". Now I'd agree that many people in the modern era would say that issues like consumer law are 'important' as you suggest and that therefore we must have congress act. Indeed, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz recently said (paraphrasing): "I don't care what someone in the 17th/18th century said" about original intent. Regardless, Paul's right on one thing, the current system is not how Constitution was intended to work.russ_watters said:...I'd even go so far as to say that if he's serious then he simply doesn't understand how the Constitution is supposed to work. The whole purpose of Congress is to enact laws to apply the Constitution to specific circumstances...
CaptainQuasar said:Here's a mainstream media article that just came out on the Ron Paul newsletters:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
(Though, by "mainstream media" I really just mean that it's an edited print source rather than a "lone gunman" web site; The New Republic definitely has a political view. But the article is put together from quotes from a wide range of Ron-Paul-authorized publications and other confirmable facts.)
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?
Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.
DrClapeyron said:Ron Paul isn't saying anything different. Every candidate so far has pointed the finger at the federal government as the source of 'this' problem or the real reason 'this thing' isn't being done is because of 'this' in 'this' department or we have to change 'this' in the department of 'that' in order to do 'this'. He says the same things, only he needs a tin foil hat so people can take him seriously.
Does it really matter if he wrote it? The quotes span an extremely long period of time, meaning that either a) he didn't read his own newsletter or b) he read it and tacitly approved. Either way, Ron Paul's integrity is in question.I'm going to look at some of the selections that he posted, probably at most to compare it to the style of his speeches and other writings to see if they match. Otherwise, I don't really see this as clear evidence that he wrote it. It's irritating that they pull this off on the day of and before the NH primary. Obviously politics as usual...
falc39 said:What a way to discredit yourself...
digg.com is not considered a reliable source.falc39 said:dang, vote fraud has already been confirmed in New Hampshire.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshire_District_Admits_Ron_Paul_Vote_Skew"
Evo said:digg.com is not considered a reliable source.
Even so, Ron Paul is not a viable candidate and isn't being considered as a serious potential candidate.
1-7-08: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.
I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error.
This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.
A Web site here: http://www.wheresthepaper.org has more on fraud techniques with hand counted paper ballots. You'll have to dig for it -- or Google, and the excellent research on this is Theresa Hommel from the state of New York.
The article claims that a summary sheet released to the media omitted the count for Paul. If that is all that happened, where is the vote fraud? What is reported to the media is a summary, not the official complete tally. The complete tally includes each and every vote for each and every candidate, including the fringe candidates and the write-ins.falc39 said:dang, vote fraud has already been confirmed in New Hampshire.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshire_District_Admits_Ron_Paul_Vote_Skew"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.htmlRon Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."
etc etc
The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
etc
Seems to be the case according to the man's own statements. Did you not see his comments on the newsletters in the article you linked?fourier jr said:this must be a different Ron Paul from the one who's running for president:
I'll take crack at the environmental case. The free market environmentalism approach would be as follows. First, create pollution credits in the vein of basic trespass law, you can't throw your pollution over the fence onto my property unless I agree and you pay me for it. Thus, 10 tons of sulfur dioxide up the stack would cost X creating incentives to reduce emissions. The credits must be salable so that the system has a natural check. If a polluter tries to hide emissions, then even if one cares nothing for the local environment there's a built in incentive to police the polluter since if I'm in the market to sell credits the polluter is depressing demand by cheating. Thats going to put drag on your 100 plants, get producers to go another way, for instance, investing in clean energy.russ_watters said:First thing they do for him is get rid of the EPA, the consumer product safety commission, the clean air act, all alternate energy funding, and a few other major impediments to businesses doing whatever the hell they want. Immediately, the country ditches all forms of clean energy, people pull the catalytic converters off their cars, and 100 new coal power plants are built.
Who is silencing you?denverdoc said:and lest you complain, the right to be silenced by those with property. Your mileage may vary.