The end of Ron Paul?

reply to post by WP4YT
I'm not getting any sound on the first video,do you know if that is on purpose?

Originally posted by muse7
I want you all to imagine if these letters had been published under Obama's name and had his signature on them, but instead of being racist against blacks, the letters contained anti White remarks.

ATS would have a field day.

I couldn't imagine any politico writing the stuff that's in that newsletter,even if Dr. Paul wasn't running for President it would be political suicide for someone of his stature to write something close to that blatant...what a load of crap!Anyone with any real honesty and sincerity will see that it's been planted to discredit him,otherwise they don't have anything on him...A kindergartener could have done a better job.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by e11888
The best part is they're not even true.

Paul has said over and over that not only did he not write them, but he didnt even know about them until 10 years after they existed.

If such is the case how do you explain his signature at the end?

Ron Paul under fire for racist newsletters

Any other politician and the masses on ATS would be calling for blood in the streets.

I disagree with enough of Ron Paul's political ideals to be lukewarm to him at best, add to that the rampant schizophrenic hypocrisy that seems to be manifested throughout his internet fan-base and he has lost my interest.

Sadly, the sheep that may just be looking at Paul for the first time will think otherwise. Thats the whole reason behind this story. To steer the sheep back to the herd.

Aside from the sheeple line getting worn to death, in light of some of the recent public commentary if I were a Ron Paul supporter I would think twice about the specific implication of accusing others of a herd mentality in this context.

People in glass houses and all that good stuff

As someone who's worked in advertising I can tell you that when we put letters together on behalf of clients. we don't actually use their signature. We use a font that looks like handwriting and use that as a "signature". I can't say that everyone does it, but I know that we do it on a regular basis. While this may appear to be damning, it may not be for the reasons I stated above.

P.S. I forgot to mention that we also write the letters, send them for approval, and many of our clients (although they SHOULD look at them to see what's in them) don't actually read them properly before they agree to have them printed. Some of them are busy people, some of them don't care, and some trust that we do our job well.

reply to post by baphomet420

WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive. Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context. "It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."

If this article is true...it proves that he's lying as he is now on record stating that he didn't write them or knows who did.....but this article contradicts that and shows that he not only admits to writing them...but that he says he was "taken out of context." It also proves that he's absolutely NOT the "ONLY HONEST POLITICIAN"....it proves he's a fraud.

Pretty damning evidence that he is telling lies to all of his supporters...and voters in general.

I don't know if there is an existing thread for this article, but if there isn't....there should be one as it will easily get lost in all the various 100's of Ron Paul threads.

Do you have a link for that article? You don't have one posted...would certainly like to see it.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
You clearly don't know much about Ron if you think he's a racist. I'm just going to leave it at that because it's pointless to argue with someone such as drunkenparrot who clearly has already made up his mind. Either way, there still is no other person in the run for potus that is even close to being worth our vote. If nothing else, Paul wins by default.

Who's arguing? If you are comfortable supporting a political candidate without all the facts then more power to you.

I could really care less as I don't believe that Ron Paul is remotely electable however if you are denying the very real possibility that Ron Paul has made a lot of extremely questionable racial comments over the years it would seem that you are the one who may not know much about Ron and are very possibly deluding yourself into believing he is something that he is not.

Anything can slip and anything can be taken out of context. There is no solid proof of racism only nit picking what you choose to fit your agenda. 30 years and this is all you guys can come up with? Really? You're only fooling yourself I'm afraid. There's is no congressman in history w/ such a solid background on the front lines.

reply to post by baphomet420


First off...I'm Not a Ron Paul supporter....So I've had no real reason to investigate any of these allegations, as I wouldn't vote for the guy anyway...that said, the last bit which I'll quote
"Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report "

Is it possible he's making an 'Reductio ad absurdum'....taking the statistics to their logical conclusion to show how absurd it is? If so then it wouldn't be racist...In a sense he'd be saying 'If you take these numbers literally then it would mean 95 % of blacks are criminals, and that's crazy' .......again I got no reason to defend the guy, and I'm sure if the other stuff he said is true then they'd stand for themselves...It's just that I didn't read that last bit as being racist...then again perhaps it really was in the context of the piece...I really don't know.

He's explained the articles so many times I fail to see why they continue to be such a big deal. Especially considering the fact that they were in first person and he did not write them. Big red flag; it might be a little different if they were written about him, but the writer is pretending to be Paul. He de-credits them. It should be the end...

Moreover, they aren't even a big deal compared to some of the other shady things the other GOP candidates have done...