Ron Paul '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays

id much rather vote for a racist ron paul, than a non-racist NWO 80% population reduction Clinton / Guliani / etc.

Originally posted by infinite

Ron Paul is nothing special. Regular politician with skeletons in the closet. Get over it and deal with it. Don't try and claim the moral high ground.

I would read the Constitution of the United States and then compare it to Ron Paul's voting record before I would say that. Thats just me though.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
[You are ignoring the explanation he gave about the newsletter. They were NOT his views.

I heard what he said and Im chalking it up to damage control. What else is he going to say about it?

There is no safer place for the money of fascists then in the pocket of Ron Paul.

do you realize how naive that sounds? Putting aside the photo op he had shaking hands with the stormfront founder and his whack job son, as I said till I was blue in the face int he thread about the donation, he had a moral and ethical obligation to return the money if it was not consistant with his beliefs.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I would read the Constitution of the United States and then compare it to Ron Paul's voting record before I would say that. Thats just me though.

Yes the voting record. I like how he put in earmarks for his district, then voted "No" on the bill knowing that it would pass preserving his reputation as "Dr. No" yet allowing him to feed at the pork barrel like all the rest of the blood suckers. So much for intergrity eh?

Originally posted by infinite

Yeah, who use to be the head of the KKK (It's documented and Black is proud of it). It's just as worse, probably even more.

I do campaign work for a political party in the UK, let me give you some advice: Don't make allegations and criticisms at other candidates if you cannot handle it being done to your man/girl.

Ron Paul is nothing special. Regular politician with skeletons in the closet. Get over it and deal with it. Don't try and claim the moral high ground.

I'm not claiming any type of ground, I know politics is nothing but mudslinging but I think this is getting ridiculous. I never for once really thought Mr. Paul would win, I just always thought he was out best hope.

You did campaign work, you should know more than anyone here how little and insignificant a $500 donation is in an election like this. To constantly reiterate the fact that he took this donation without mentioning how laughably small it was is slander in my book.

I understand you're in the EU but here in the US Ron Paul is something special. He's the only politician most of us can remember that is actually on the side of the populous and not special interest groups or political party affiliations. Mr. Paul is THE MOST qualified candidate for the office of the presidency and has been open and honest through his career. He has stood by his morals and his beliefs and has voted accordingly. He's the only politician I know of thats against the income tax! That's nothing special????

To say Ron Paul is nothing special smacks of ignorance.

Originally posted by FredT

Yes the voting record. I like how he put in earmarks for his district, then voted "No" on the bill knowing that it would pass preserving his reputation as "Dr. No" yet allowing him to feed at the pork barrel like all the rest of the blood suckers. So much for intergrity eh?

He does have to represent his district though, doesn't he. He has stated that the system is flawed and that he wants to change it. You are looking for something that isn't there.

Putting the letter aside, this proves another thing by the comments in this thread.

How damaging the conspiracy crowd is becoming to Ron Paul. Alex Jones has done so much damage to him, which resulted in Paul having to keep saying he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Jones has basically turned Ron Paul into the "Conspiracy Theorists" candidate and Stormfront has made him the "White Saviour" candidate.

The views of his supporters are being seen as HIS VIEWS.

Ron Paul does not think the NWO is here.

He doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job.

Paul doesn't believe the media is controlled by the elite.

He certainly doesn't believe all the Icke theories about all Presidents being related.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
You did campaign work, you should know more than anyone here how little and insignificant a $500 donation is in an election like this. To constantly reiterate the fact that he took this donation without mentioning how laughably small it was is slander in my book.

The amount isn't the problem, the source is.
Unlike you, I know the source of the money is more important and can be potentially damaging to a political party or candidate. Candidates know controversial funders are dangerous. Example, when the Tories accepted money from the Freemasons.

It's rule one of political funding.

Look at the Labour party donations in the UK, the government is basically dead in the water cause of it.

If we go by your logic, its okay for Al Qaeda then to give Paul $100...due to it being a small amount, its not a problem right?

Originally posted by FredT

At what point does it just become another politico trying to spin his way out of everything? While I know that most of this is being dismissed by his core supporters as a smear campaign etc. but the reality of this matter is that this stuff is adding up and its not painting a favorible picture of him.

At what point do you question your support of him? The donation from the neo Nazi?, I understand how he trying to spin it but the newsletter that smacks of something you might see on the Neo nazi's Whats next?

I really don't see what is adding up against him. You mean the articles he didn't write and the extremely small donation??? Correct me if I'm wrong but we do have the freedom to financially support any candidate we wish in this country.

I'm a logical person, if Mr. Paul started doing things that would lead me to question my trust in him then I would do so. However, so far he has only done things that increase people's trust in him. If he were to start acting like Bush or Clinton, promising things and not delivering, making statements but not acting accordingly, kow towing to special interest groups, continued the eroding of our civil rights, then I would cease my support of him.

But if the best his opponents can do is some articles he didn't write and a tiny donation from a racist I'm going to keep supporting him based on his stellar political record, his work as a doctor and his knowledge of the political and economic system of this country.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I really don't see what is adding up against him. You mean the articles he didn't write and the extremely small donation??? Correct me if I'm wrong but we do have the freedom to financially support any candidate we wish in this country.

Sure you do just as I do, but the candidate in question ALSO has the right to refuse such a donation which HE chose not to do.

But if the best his opponents can do is some articles he didn't write and a tiny donation from a racist.

Hmmmmmm, the amount of the donation is irrelevant, I would not care if it was $5 the simple fact is that on this moral and ethical test he failed. The fact that this type of stuff is starting to come up AGAIN is also troubling. Everybody inthis country has the right to support whatever candidate they wish, heck Lyndon larouche has his supporters.

However the more I learn about Paul, the more it seems he is just like the rest of the blood suckers we have in power with a bit of personality and thats about it.

Originally posted by infinite

The amount isn't the problem, the source is.
Unlike you, I know the source of the money is more important and can be potentially damaging to a political party or candidate. Candidates know controversial funders are dangerous. Example, when the Tories accepted money from the Freemasons.

It's rule one of political funding.

Look at the Labour party donations in the UK, the government is basically dead in the water cause of it.

If we go by your logic, its okay for Al Qaeda then to give Paul $100...due to it being a small amount, its not a problem right?

Wrong, by my logic a candidate has the freedom to accept donations from anyone he or she wishes. Obviously taking donations from certain groups may come back to bit them that's not what I'm arguing.

By my logic $500 is a small donation in a field where million dollar donations are the norm. That $500 does nothing by way of buying Paul's loyalty. If Paul were to be elected he would not think twice about ignoring Stormfront's demands since I'm almost positive he received many more private donations of much higher denominations.

When a candidate's campaign is largely funded by certain corporations or special interest groups who donate millions of dollars it stands to reckon that they must later answer to those groups when they wish to have a new drug approved or need a change in import fees.

Ron Paul is NOT now in the pockets of Stormfront, a laughably small and insignificant organization.

Mr. Paul's campaign is largely supported by the populous which is who he intends to answer to if and when he is elected.

I took Paul's refusal to return the donation simply as a statement that he's not going to play silly media games & get caught up in manufactured "slow news day" controversies.

How many politicians do you really think sit there and do a background check on every $500 campaign donor?

Get real

Originally posted by FredT


Hmmmmmm, the amount of the donation is irrelevant, I would not care if it was $5 the simple fact is that on this moral and ethical test he failed. The fact that this type of stuff is starting to come up AGAIN is also troubling. Everybody inthis country has the right to support whatever candidate they wish, heck Lyndon larouche has his supporters.

However the more I learn about Paul, the more it seems he is just like the rest of the blood suckers we have in power with a bit of personality and thats about it.

More likely than not he couldn't afford to turn down any donations.

According to you if someone who had an abortion donated money then Ron Paul supports abortion. If he received money from evangelicals then he supports their beliefs too. It's just not true at all. Your argument is logically false.

reply to post by Shadowflux


The fact you think the amount is more important, than the ethical strings just shows how much you know about politics. Defending donations from the former head of the KKK is worrying, I never thought I'd see a ATS member do that

You are showing desperation not patriotism.

Hilary Clinton had donation problems and her campaign gave it back because of the damaged it was doing to her. Ron Paul, on the other hand, thought it was okay to accept money (and keep it from a racist). But you think Clinton's experience was different? Again, you cannot sit on the moral high ground.

If you REALLY think Ron Paul was the true proud American then you would be disappointed he didn't say "no thanx, I believe in a equal America. I don't want your money".

That would of got him more votes.

The fact you defend this and go "la la la" to ever criticism shows ignorance more than anything. My advice, go out and campaign. Do door to door, city stands and arranging meetings, you will see how much ethics and morality plays in politics.

Once you've done that, send me a U2U then we'll talk.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by infinite]

the way i see it, if Ron Paul would have returned the money, it would have been contrary to his views on free speech and etc.

If a racist wants the federal government out of his life, then who the heck is anyone to say otherwise? Ron Paul is a true republican, in that he sticks up for everyone, not just the people who think they are superior in some way - albeit moral, financial, or whatever.

Don't make me start quoting Voltaire.

reply to post by infinite

Hilary Clinton had donation problems and her campaign gave it back because of the damaged it was doing to her. Ron Paul, on the other hand, thought it was okay to accept money (and keep it from a racist). But you think Clinton's experience was different? Again, you cannot sit on the moral high ground.

I have to disagree, all that shows me is that Hillary is more willing to play the media political complex (like the military industrial complex, although generally more tasteless) "game" than Paul.

Paul refused to budge on principle, even if it made him look bad.
Hillary did what seemd most politically expedient, as she always has.

It doesn't matter anyway, because I would never vote for Hillary.
She portrays herself as a progressive, but she's anything but.

She was a vocal supporter of the Iraq War, she's an ardent and uncritical supporter of Israel, led a campaign to censor video games, etc. etc...

She represents the worst the Democratic party has to offer: interventionism and authoritarianism with a friendly "communitarian" veneer.

No thanks.





[edit on 1/11/08 by xmotex]

I've done campaigning, everyone I know is now a Ron Paul supporter because of me. I know a good deal about politics and it seems that if anyone is taking a high ground it's the person who speaks down to those who disagree with them.

Ron Paul is not a racist. Period.

You're basing your arguments off of very scant "evidence" because it matches your agenda, that right there is politics in a nutshell. You're two steps away from calling me a racist just because I support Ron Paul and the decisions he's made, who is the one acting out of desperation?

Perhaps if you were an American yourself you would understand this whole situation from a different view point. Ron Paul is America's best hope right now and I shouldn't at all be surprised that his opponents would dredge up insignificant information just to smear him.

I support the constitution and the rights it gives us as citizens, I support the right of every citizen to say ANYTHING he or she would like. Anything, no matter how much we may not like what they say, it is their right to say it. Ron Paul also supports the constitution and EVERY right it grants us, that is why I support him. If he chose to keep a donation from someone you don't like I hardly see how that is a major shortcoming in his campaign.

When compared with the rest of his record and his actions throughout his life these two incidents are easily overshadowed.

However, people will continue to pursue their own agendas even if it requires skewing of the facts, spinning of the information and down right arrogance. A politician should not win an election because his side has better hit men, someone should win an election because they are the most qualified candidate for the position.

Perhaps you do know more about acting in the political arena than I do, it appears you are well versed in the actions and techniques used to turn an election into an absolute quagmire of mud throwing, smear campaigns, lies and half truths. It seems you are more qualified than I to operate in a corrupt political arena. Congrats.

Oh No, Wolf Blitzer is a racist who hates gays and believes in aliens and this document that is in no way a forgery proves it!!!1!1!!ones!!1!!




Seriously, any yahoo, that believes the utterly stupid crap that CNN spits up is a fool beyond measure.

-Jimmy

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Before your little poster gets removed by the mods i wish to applaud you. I think that is basically all this is.

Another attempt by the media to push the only candidate with a soul backwards. And aren't the Paul haters taking it up hook, line and sinker.

I'm in no way a rabid Ron Paul fan, but to me his foes are far more aggressive and zealous than his supporters are.

How about you people learn to agree to disagree, instead of slinging mud at each other over candidate preference? Your vote is your own, private choice and you shouldn't be criticized one way or another over who you chose.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by fooffstarr]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by fooffstarr]

reply to post by fooffstarr


Ah, thank you, why would my post be removed?

It's the NWO!