Random shit that other people wrote over 20 years ago. lol, this isn't even a relevant "scandal."

This is the only so-called dirt that the media has on Ron Paul, so they will continue to beat the horse to death.

Does anyone have any real dirt on Ron Paul? I really doubt it, I know a lot about the man and I've never seen any.

Please post it when you find it though.

let me put it more simply. i understand what you are saying but i think you are delusional.

lol, so what? Pointless comment is pointless.

you misrepresent the facts. either you are lying or ignorant.

what would be a point of ron paul running a newsletter with content that sounds like it comes from david duke's website for over 30 years? why do you think they did that? what is your explanation?

every candidate's past gets run over with a fine toothed comb. while paul's explanation is good enough for his drones the media and large parts of the population just can't believe that he was unaware what was written in the newsletters.

and since he was he should explain himself. which he refuses to do. candidates have been sunk for less, it's no big conspiracy.

If he's such a hardcore racist why can none of you seem to find anything else connecting him to racism?

Shouldn't there be a racist speech somewhere? An article written by him? Something?

Let me know when you find it.

But let me guess, you will only continue to focus on these 20 year old newsletters that he didn't write. lol

When it comes to Ron Paul I like to focus on his consistent record, his loyalty to our constitution, his dedication to liberty and freedom for all. You know, things that actually matter.

If you guys want to obsess over these old ass newsletters that weren't even written by him then go right ahead, that's your right. Enjoy yourselves.

maybe newsletters that he put out for over 30 years under his name and were ghostwritten by people he hired? you should check them out. there is a link to them in this thread.

Do you know what "anything else" means? You keep going back to the same exact thing, the old newsletters.

Please find something else connecting Ron Paul to racism, because I can't find anything.

Like I said, if he's such a big racist it shouldn't be that hard.

how many connections do you need. a newsletter with a consistent racist theme for 30 years seems like a good enough one for most.

if it's not a big deal anyway why does paul refuse to let anyone access to the back issue archives. should be no issue if there is nothing to hide, right?

weve had KLANSMEN in congress for what 50 years and you guys are worried about racists NOW?

L:OLOLOL talk about late.

Freedom is popular, and Ron Paul is legitimately destroying all of his political rivals now to the point that the shadow government (NWO) is getting a little nervous.

First they resort to screaming at the TOP OF THEIR LUNGS that "he can't win!" ..Now he's winning.

The next trick was to limit his air time, and try to silence his voice. Such as happened in the November CBS debate, giving him only 89 seconds. It failed. Polls kept on indicating his steady rise.

Growing increasingly desperate, they resorted to "distancing measures" saying that even if Ron Paul wins in Iowa, "it doesn't count." That they would just ignore the outcome of the primaries if they didn't like the result. ..For good measure, they threw in healthy dose of "Insult" to really persuade the people of Iowa to NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL. They came out with this little gem .."if you vote for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul wins in Iowa it will discredit the Iowa caucuses."



It's getting so pathetic, it's almost laughable. One failed approach after another.

Nothing is working, what to do???

I know, let's call him a RACIST!! That always works. It worked to silence any opposition to Obama. It will work now. Let's try it..

..So, I guess after all their other gambits failed, the best they can do now is to call him out on something HE DIDN'T WRITE, and attach the "racist" label to him. :1orglaugh

Oh, yeah, he's a racist all right. SO MUCH OF A RACIST that the articles he DID write (as a medical doctor) were WARNING blacks about H.I.V. being a "race specific" bio weapon targeting them!

What's next? I can hardly wait. ...The NWO tactics are really transparent, and honestly, lame. Even children don't fall for such non-sense.

The American people won't be fooled this time. Freedom is popular. :2 cents:

stop the fed and income tax!

o'rly? link? didn't you get the memo that ron paul really didn't write the newsletters? :1orglaugh

We need term limits for Congress.

100% agree. I think limiting it to a total of 6-8 years max service for the house and senate would do wonders for this country.

Yea they are starting to get really desperate. The racist card works pretty well though, unfortunately. The sheep eat that shit up.

Yup.

And before any of these idiots ask the question.... yes, INCLUDING Ron Paul. None of them should be there longer than about 8 years max.

I agree. I would be all for having it be an 8 year max. With you having to get re-elected after 4 years just like the president. After your second term you are done.

StickyGreen, can you honestly say that if it was discovered that Mitt Romney was the Editor of a publication for over 20 years called The Mitt Romney Newsletter, which he made millions of dollars from, that contained vile racist ideology, that you would just brush it off?

ADG

Divide and Conquer.

It's a lot like what goes on around here. We have a bunch of misinformed half-wits (who get globalist talking points rammed into their heads) coming here to argue for THEIR OWN enslavement.

I'm all for alternative points of view, and healthy discourse, but I mean, common people. We all need to see past the football issues, racial division ..etc that are injected into the political narrative to divide and conquer us. They keep running the same plays on us over and over, and we need to at least recognize that.

Holy shit... it speaks! lol

Well no I wouldn't just brush it off, and I don't completely brush off Paul's involvement with his newsletters. He should have been more involved and not allowed people to be hired who would write racist shit. He should have made sure nothing like that would even be released since his name was attached to it, and he has admitted this. People make mistakes in their lives, and this seems to be Ron Paul's worst mistake.

But I have followed Ron Paul very closely since 06 or 07 and I honestly do not believe that he is racist at all. I have read all of his books, seen most of his interviews, and listened to most of his comments at debates... and I have never got the feeling that he is racist. I think he's a great man and a great American.

lol, so true...

If Ron Paul was racist I would not support him, simple as that.

I can't stand racists, I think there is really only one "race" here: the human race.

I want freedom and equality for all, just like Ron Paul does.

how do you explain the good dr. paul used to admit her wrote the columns?

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/ol...d-for-over-a-d

The first time I can find reporting on the controversy is in the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:

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." [...]

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." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"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 inefficiencies 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.

May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

sounds like a typical lying hypocritical politician to me. ron paul 2012.

Yeah, we need a bunch of n00bs running the country . . . . I swear, you guys act like this is Burning Man.

You don't have to be some kind of rocket scientist to work in government. Just follow the constitution and do what's best for the American people. (lol, imagine that)

lol pretty sure I was arguing in your favor. But what I mean is I didn't see any quotes from Ron Paul or his newsletter where he said something racist.

Shut the fuck up with this NWO, Illuminati, World Currency bullshit. If people who believed in that garbage didn't back him his image wouldn't be so bad to others.

Oh, I suppose you feel qualified. Again, this is not Burning Man or OWS.

Actually no, I don't feel qualified. I said it isn't rocket science, yet it is still preferable to have some formal education in government and law. I majored in business.

Based on your logic alone, Barack Obama isn't a very good president. The guy only had 3 years of experience working in the federal government.

Ron Paul has 21 years of working experience in the federal government. So based on your logic he should be a great president.

You're extremely scared of following the constitution? Why? Afraid you might have to compete?
Or just sad that John Edwards isn't running again?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=1m40s

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Ron Paul's view on racism in his own words:

People who have known and worked with Paul personally, including the editorial staff of the New York Sun Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul and Nelson Linder, President of the Austin branch of the NAACP have publically dismissed the notion that he is a bigot. In 1993, while the most hysterical of the newsletters were being disseminated, openly-gay libertarian Rick Sincere was running for the Virginia General Assembly and found Paul readily at his side:

"Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over hisown signature, endorsing an ?avowed homosexual? for public office."

Paul's intellectual heroes include Ludwig von Mises, and among his friends were Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, and Aaron Russo, two of whom he mourned several years ago (Friedman and Russo), and all of whom are Jewish. Paul has vehemently denounced racism numerous times in print. In 2007, Paul praised Muhammad Ali as ?a man of greatcourage who practiced what Martin Luther King made popular and contributed to ending the draft."

But Paul and his family worked in the publishing company, Ron Paul & Associates!

This is admittedly true. Although Paul himself only owned a minority stake, according to data from the Texas Secretary of State, he was president, his daughter treasurer, his wife secretary, and Lew Rockwell vice-president while Ron Paul & Associates was still active. Of course, it's silly to think that this establishes anything. Being president or secretary is hardly the same asbeing editor or writer, in the same way as the responsibilities of a CEO are rather divorced from those of a factory-floor manager. I doubt that Bill Gates personally inspects every Windows CD, or that Lee Scott was intimately familiar with the inventory and balance sheet ofany given Walmart.

"In the dozen or so conversations we've had with Dr. Paul over nearly 30 years, he has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic."

?Reckoning With Ron Paul.? Editorial.

The New York Sun. 18 Apr. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.

david duke says he's not racist as well.

"I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. And I wasn't the only staff member of ?mixed race.? There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me?"

Rhodes, Stewart. ?I Am a Mexican-American, I Worked for Ron Paul in the 1990's, and I Know That Ron Paul Is No Racist!?

Dirt Rhodes Scholar. Blogger, 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. Asked directly if he thought Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded ?No I don't,? adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

It is true that the newsletters were published monthly under different names and date backsome decades - the Ron Paul Freedom Report to at least 1978, the Ron Paul Investment Letter and Survival Report to 1985, and the Ron Paul Political Report to 1987. However, as Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic himself partly acknowledged and others have affirmed, the ?incendiary? items appear only from about 1989 to 1994. Chronologically, this coincides with the period from 1985 to 1996, when Ron Paul was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, and follows his bid for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Obvious closeted bigot remains closeted. Cult followers believe every word. news at 11

David Neiwert claimed that Ron Paul has captured the heart of white supremacists everywhere: For example, at a Paul rally in August in New Jersey, a sizeable number of Stormfronters showed up. Indeed, a quick Google of Stormfront's site for "Ron Paul" gives you a clear idea just how involved they are: 789,000 links.

So some white nationalists support Ron Paul, therefore Ron Paul is some kind of pseudo-whitenationalist. Of course, in light of the fact that Obama has been captured on camera marching personally with the New Black Panthers, this train-wrecked reasoning would imply that we already have a racist in the white house. And funnily enough, if I do a similar ?Google? of theDailyKos for Paul's name, I get 1,490,000 hits. Who would've thought the people at the left's Fox News were such rabid Bircherites?

paul could just clear up the matter by allowing the media to have access to the newsletter archives. :2 cents:

Talk about double standards. This whole obsession with who “supports” whom is stupid. Neiwart's obnoxious, sanctimonious demand that all candidates he doesn't like only receive support from ideological groups pre-approved by him is ridiculous. Racists ultimately have to vote for someone, and who that vote is cast for doesn't tell you much. A racist could be voting against Candidate X just as much as he or she is voting for Candidate Y.

The fact that a fewtin-pot would-be fuehrers have announced they support Paul says no more about Paul than the Communist Party USA's quasi-endorsement of John Kerry in 2004, or the Klan's endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1980, said about those candidates.

And you know, I would imagine the US Treasury takes in quite a large sum of tax dollars from Stormfront every year. Why don't they return this “dirty money”? Are they a bunch of racists too?

It should be noted that very few of the articles are actually attributed to anyone. None of the newsletters CNN found made authorship clear. Kirchick himself wrote that ?with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself.? According to The Economist, ?It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item." Some have also pointed out that the breezy, hip, slang-littered journalese of the newsletters doesn't resemble Paul's style, the more dry and straightforward prose exhibited in numerous published works.

Yet there are some clues as to Ron Paul's role. We've established that the articles in question were written sporadically across a 4-year period from 1990-94. Yet only a newsletter from April 1978 containing a rant about the Trilateral Commission contains Paul's signature. And according to Kirchick, only the masthead of the March 1987 Investment Letter lists ?the Hon. Ron Paul? as ?Editor and Publisher."

The Ron Paul Investment Letter of 1988 acknowledges Paul as editor in a footer. Yet the next month, all direct mention of him is erased and Lew Rockwell is touted as editor. The one issue of the Political Report which Kirchick decided to publish that even contains a similar footer is the one from March 1990, which doesn't even cite an editor at all. That appears to be it. None of the offending newsletters claim Ron Paul as involved in publication.

Other sources have claimed that the ?publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a 'Ron Paul' column.? According to Lew Rockwell there were, at any given time, "seven or eight freelancers involved?. As Paul himself said in his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, ?People came and [went]. And there were people who were hired. I don't know any of their names.?

This wouldn't be new for the Paul campaign: ?Much of Ron Paul's support comes independent of him or his official organization. For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party '07, or the various 'money bombs' that catapulted him to stardom.?

Anyone taking the view that Ron Paul is incompetant has given up any claim on being interested in the truth, rather than inscoring cheap political points against a candidate they don't like and bullying his fans. Harris puts it well:

"When those issues were published, Paul was a full-time medical doctor and a busy family man, as well as an in-demand speaker and a student of politics and current events ― in short, a man with tremendous demands on his time and energy. He had recently ended an exhaustive presidential race, returned to private practice, and was not in Congress or involved in electoral politics. He had given up control of his newsletter business; he kept only a minority share in the newsletter that bore his name. He made an ill-advised decision to turn the newsletter over to others, to let others write it and edit it and publish unsigned articles in this newsletter with his name in the title. He apparently failed to closely monitor it. That turned out to be a ghastly error."

This is the blatant fallacy that lies behind the statement, ?If Ron Paul can't even run an 8-page newsletter, how can we expect him to run an entire country?? Ron Paul wasn't ?running? that newsletter. In fact, he had long since relinquished responsibility for it. Over the course of several years, during which dozens of different newsletters were released, a few objectionable issues managed to slip out under his nose while he was delivering babies professionally, speaking publically, and tending to five children. Are we to denounce him for not having superhuman powers?

Oh boo-hoo, Ron Paul was raking in cash with these newsletters!

Really? It's true that Sanchez and Weigel's original 2008 article claimed that a tax document from June 1993 reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates [RP&A], listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country.

Yet, for one thing, it isn't clear that all of that revenue came solely from the newsletters. RP&A was certainly involved in other ventures, for instance in publishing 'The Ron Paul Money Book' in 1991.

But more importantly, income is not profit . This is basic accounting. It is beyond meaningless to state RP&A's income over a given period without mentioning its expenses over the same period. That's to say, Sanchez and Weigel don't even tell us whether RP&A (now-defunct) broke even running the newsletters. And since they never disclosed this ?tax document?, we are not likely to find out.

To allege that ?the publishing operation was lucrative?, like they do, is to engage in duplicity so egregious the word has not yet been coined for it.