Who Actually Wrote The Racist Ron Paul Newsletters? Find Out Inside

reply to post by baphomet420


There are no damning direct quotes in that article. The quotes cited came from the newsletters, not Paul. Re-read your article again.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Just like Arianna Huffington is personally responsible for everything that appears on the Huffington Post.

No...what don't you understand about this.

Arianna allows people to publish articles with their own name on it. They don't publish articles saying Arianna wrote them when actually someone else wrote them.

These were written to be passed off as it was Ron Paul writting them...written in first person as if it was Paul himself writting them. It is nothing at all like the Huffington Post. Those articles and blogs are clearly the writings of other individuals.

I don't know how else to explain it to you...your analogy is horribly wrong...and yet you keep stating it over and over even after it is pointed out how wrong it is.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by baphomet420

 

There are no damning direct quotes in that article. The quotes cited came from the newsletters, not Paul. Re-read your article again.

edit on 11-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

here let me help you

"If someone challenges your character and takes the

interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

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

reply to post by mnemeth1


All correct as far as I can find.

To add to that, the publication that contained the most objectionable stuff was a for profit endeavor which produced around a million in annual revenue for Mr. Paul. Most seem to accept Paul's explanation despite the hype. What keeps it going is inconsistent answers.

Another interesting thing is that at the end of Paul's failed campaigns, he kept the excess monies for personal uses. Many other candidates over the years have done the same thing. They often run knowing they cannot win, but it is the money and influence they are actually after. Neither good nor bad, just factual. Well sometimes bad like David Duke who did the exact same thing. You can actually live off campaigning and never have a job in fact. Ralph Nader got very wealthy doing exactly that for a living.

Lot's of info about Paul I'm finding you have to dig for. For instance only one Bill he ever sponsored passed and it was meaningless. He authored many Bills that could not even find one sponsor.

Just keeping it real after many, many hours of reading and searching. I'm still very much undecided.

reply to post by Blaine91555


My decision is simple. They are all politicians. Not saints. What matters is where they want to take this country. And I damn well am not voting for anyone who wishes to further the insanity of these wars. He is the only one, so as I struggle to fight the jadedness, I am going to vote for the only man willing to speak up about our civil liberties.

And it's not Mitt Romney.

reply to post by ThinkingCap


Obama said he was opposed to the wars and then ended them on the same schedule Bush suggested. In fact if I recall Bush would have pulled out a bit quicker.

Their history does matter. Whether they can lead does matter. When they have been a DC insider as long as Paul, his record on the Bills he authored and how effective he was at getting them passed is important in my mind. They can all say anything, but can they lead to get it through Congress or not? Can they get others to join with them or not? Are their answers consistent or not?

The most important is how do they work with Congress and the Senate. If they cannot lead them and unite enough of them behind their agenda, you may as well stick an answering machine in the White House and go play.

That is however a good thing. Imagine if any of these clowns had the power of a Dictator. You think we have issues now!

I may be getting a tad off topic, but I think this is just the Status Quo at work, in my Opinion the Status Quo is basically "All White Males are racist, and only White males are racist" Or that's at least by in large the notion made to believed through countless different Meme's and other forms of Social indoctrination/Engineering. Of Course Ron Paul is a "Anti-Semite", because he want's to oust the Bankers, End the Fed as the youngins these days say. Of course these ideas are the same shared by men like Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and even Adolf Hitler. Racism itself is even just a Communist Bolshevik terminology made by Leon Trotsky, it's a way to control the masses through demoralization and subversion of anyone who dares disagree. Systems are not controlled by winning debates or even FACTS, it is controlled by WORDISMS. Imposing Terminology. That is what they are attempting to down with Dr Ron Paul, they wish to discredit him and control the energy flow with WORDISMS. This is how the Soviet Union operated more or less. But The Soviet Union was also BROUGHT DOWN by imposing terminology.

In their OPINION Ron Paul is Racist. They're only saying that because he's WHITE.

Anti-Racism is just a codeword for Anti-White.