It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Your first link points to an FAQ that was last updated in 2008. Is it not possible that new information has surfaced? For whatever reason, Paul's old secretary has decided to come forward now - I don't see any reason to dismiss her side of the story until it's fully investigated.
In your later post you do make a food point in that there were 240 issues published, and only 20 have been shown to have this sort of content - however, I feel for someone who is running for President, that's 20 too many.
I seriously doubt the right would be so eager to dismiss these sorts of allegations had they been leveled against Candidate/President Obama, especially with 20 prime examples.
In any case, I'd like to take a second to thank you for your courteous, calm and well thought out replies. You set a good example, and others should take note.
Originally posted by negativenihil
Originally posted by ArrowsNV
Newt's had three wives and changes his views on a lot of things constantly, Romney's in bed with Wall St and dodges his tax bracket, the only thing bad they can say about Paul is that he slipped up like 20 years ago in a newsletter that nobody even remembered until a few months ago.
These newsletters were actually an issue when he tried to run back in 2008 as well. This is hardly something new that was dreamed up for 2012.
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Muttley2012
You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is up to you to prove that Ron did approve it, if no proof, tough luck.
I know this will be a hard fact to swallow for libertarians, but sometimes we do in fact need federal regulations to ensure everyone has the same rights no matter where they are in the country - regardless of sex, race, or sexual orientation.
The same can be said about things such as the Department of Education (something Paul has promised to get rid of). If we do not have federal standards and regulations for education, then we have the very real risk of states teaching radically different things to students.
The end result would be Americans being unable to actually compete on the world stage. Some states would opt not to teach science, while others might opt to ignore slavery. How silly would we look to the rest of the world?
Originally posted by ArrowsNV
And I'm sure it's not the first time someone has dug up some minor issue on a political candidate during a Presidential race, I highly doubt it'll be the last either. It's not like they dug up that he was making $53k per day and only pays about half what his taxes should be, or found out he asked his dying second wife to have an open marriage with the chick he was already banging on the side...
And I would love to see where you get this "homophobic" idea from. He may be against it personally but he has even said, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.".
He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment too...
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Praetorius
Oh...well if he is only racist part of the time...I guess that's ok
Or...Ron Paul just couldn't help himself those 20 times and let his racism slip out....as Rick Perry would say..."oops".
(Slate, 12/27/11)
Nobody grills Paul about this stuff. When I asked Savage about the ugly comments in old Paul Survival Reports, he shrugged them off. “Ron Paul can have the closet,” he said. “He might miss it, but we sure don't. Maybe there's room in there for his old newsletters?”
There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the # alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”
Originally posted by doom27
My opinion is, who cares if he's racist or not?
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Muttley2012
You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is up to you to prove that Ron did approve it, if no proof, tough luck.
Originally posted by Praetorius
I would assume you're suggesting the answer is "less silly and competitive than we're viewed now", although I have a incredibly hard time trying to convince myself to agree - almost as equally hard as convincing myself to consider such examples as you provide realistic.
No offense intended in that last bit, the thought just kind of amuses me. I'm not sure why so many people want to think the states and their people would allow such moves.
The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”
Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.
Originally posted by negativenihil
It sounds to me like you really should start a new thread all about Newt. This thread's topic is Ron Paul and his newsletters and the latest accusations that he was in fact aware of the contents.
I can't make you read the information i've linked to, that's on you. The contents of his newsletters as well as his writings on lewrockwell.com demonstrate his disgust for the homosexual population of this country.