Paul personally signed off on racist newsletters.

[Oakvale]

I don't think is denial, it's more like "oh, this again? It's the same that 4 years ago".


Seriously, if you don't have more "scandals", why don't you STFU?

I don't particularly want someone who signs off on this kind of thing to be the most powerful person on the planet, regardless of their policy positions. Personally.

At least he's not an idiot that thinks that the world could be managed with a big stick.

Right, but Paul's foreign policy, while it has some good consequences in avoiding bad wars (Iraq!), comes from an isolationist philosophy I dislike and would have prevented the US intervening in Libya, for example.

[tmthforu94]

Once again, false allegations are made by people determined to keep Paul from winning the Presidency.

[Peeperkorn]

I don't think is denial, it's more like "oh, this again? It's the same that 4 years ago".


Seriously, if you don't have more "scandals", why don't you STFU?

I don't particularly want someone who signs off on this kind of thing to be the most powerful person on the planet, regardless of their policy positions. Personally.

At least he's not an idiot that thinks that the world could be managed with a big stick.

Right, but Paul's foreign policy, while it has some good consequences in avoiding bad wars (Iraq!), comes from an isolationist philosophy I dislike and would have prevented the US intervening in Libya, for example.

Yes, I forgot that  Libya is like Disneyland right now. The Tuareg revolution has nothing to do with it.

[Oakvale]

I don't think is denial, it's more like "oh, this again? It's the same that 4 years ago".


Seriously, if you don't have more "scandals", why don't you STFU?

I don't particularly want someone who signs off on this kind of thing to be the most powerful person on the planet, regardless of their policy positions. Personally.

At least he's not an idiot that thinks that the world could be managed with a big stick.

Right, but Paul's foreign policy, while it has some good consequences in avoiding bad wars (Iraq!), comes from an isolationist philosophy I dislike and would have prevented the US intervening in Libya, for example.

Yes, I forgot that  Libya is like Disneyland right now. The Tuareg revolution has nothing to do with it.

I didn't say that. But I think Libya is better off without Gadaffi in power, no?

[Keystone Phil]

And the Paul people predictably are in denial. Whatever helps soothe the cognitive dissonance...

I suppose the Obama people were in denial about that fake birth certificate, too

U 4 REAL BRO

Sadly, MDB is very serious.

[Zarn]

I don't think is denial, it's more like "oh, this again? It's the same that 4 years ago".


Seriously, if you don't have more "scandals", why don't you STFU?

I don't particularly want someone who signs off on this kind of thing to be the most powerful person on the planet, regardless of their policy positions. Personally.

At least he's not an idiot that thinks that the world could be managed with a big stick.

Right, but Paul's foreign policy, while it has some good consequences in avoiding bad wars (Iraq!), comes from an isolationist philosophy I dislike and would have prevented the US intervening in Libya, for example.

Yes, I forgot that  Libya is like Disneyland right now. The Tuareg revolution has nothing to do with it.

I didn't say that. But I think Libya is better off without Gadaffi in power, no?

That's what neocons said about Iraq.

As for Paul, he is the only one that would end the War on Drugs. Not even Obama is willing to do that. The reason why people are attacking Paul on something he did not write or believes is not because they are morally outraged. It is opportunism at its finest.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I don't think is denial, it's more like "oh, this again? It's the same that 4 years ago".


Seriously, if you don't have more "scandals", why don't you STFU?

I don't particularly want someone who signs off on this kind of thing to be the most powerful person on the planet, regardless of their policy positions. Personally.

At least he's not an idiot that thinks that the world could be managed with a big stick.

Right, but Paul's foreign policy, while it has some good consequences in avoiding bad wars (Iraq!), comes from an isolationist philosophy I dislike and would have prevented the US intervening in Libya, for example.

Yes, I forgot that  Libya is like Disneyland right now. The Tuareg revolution has nothing to do with it.

I didn't say that. But I think Libya is better off without Gadaffi in power, no?

That's what neocons said about Iraq.

Both Iraq and Libya are better off without leaders that massacre their own people, Zarn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, okay, that's one thing that is good about Ron Paul. However, his disastrous economic policies matter more, imo.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There has already been enough evidence posted in this thread that you are, in fact, wrong that I don't feel the need to post any more.

[Zarn]

When you make a good rebuttal, you actually have to make sense. Try again.

[Oakvale]

It's a bizzare non-sequitur that this was even brought up, but it's disingenuous to state that Paul will end the War on Drugs. As with everything else, he'd just punt the issue to the states. Needless to say, virtually every state is going to ban all drugs with the possible exception of cannabis in a few, so a President Paul wouldn't end the drug war. You'd just end up with fifty different Wars on Drugs, with candidates for Governor pledging to execute pot dealers and so on to pander to reactionary voters. Paul would actually make the War On Drugs much worse.

It's clear that Paul's philosophy is based around little more than a pathological hatred of federal government. He doesn't want the federal government infringing on "liberty" but he's got no problem allowing state government and private businesses to run roughshod over people's rights.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

When you make a good rebuttal, you actually have to make sense. Try again.

Herp, derp, I disagree with this, so it must not make sense.
Try again, while actually maybe reading my post.

[Averroës Nix]

1. Those defending Paul are correct that these statements are inconsistent with the Ron Paul that we've seen in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Well, mostly inconsistent.

2. It's also obvious that Paul was the aware of the newsletters as they were published and bears some responsibility for their content.

3. A significant portion of the newsletter apologists will not accept any amount of evidence as sufficient proof that Ron Paul bears some responsibility for what was published under his name. Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it far better than I can.

[Zarn]

When you make a good rebuttal, you actually have to make sense. Try again.

Herp, derp, I disagree with this, so it must not make sense.
Try again, while actually maybe reading my post.

The problem is you tried to make what I said insignificant, but you did not back it up with actual facts. It also really doesn't matter what you think of his economic policy.

[TheGlobalizer]

1. Those defending Paul are correct that these statements are inconsistent with the Ron Paul that we've seen in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Well, mostly inconsistent.

2. It's also obvious that Paul was the aware of the newsletters as they were published and bears some responsibility for their content.

3. A significant portion of the newsletter apologists will not accept any amount of evidence as sufficient proof that Ron Paul bears some responsibility for what was published under his name. Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it far better than I can.

I agree with most of this, but I'll add one thing that seems to be consistently ignored: it seems painfully obvious that even if Ron Paul WROTE THEM HIMSELF, they weren't directed at espousing racism in action.  They were these sorts of racially-tinged commentary pieces that drove up the revenue and provided an audience for a similarly extreme (at the time) but less repugnant view.  "White man's burden" and a reaction to affirmative action was a big deal at the time and there were a lot of resentful whites seeing the fad of hiring minorities and women take root, largely to their personal detriment.

I don't think Ron Paul wrote them or fully read them.  I suspect he blessed the general theory, and I'm sure he views it as a slightly repugnant means to a noble end.  He is single-minded in his desire to shrink the government, and may have even seen it as an approximation of taking a principled stand against government-supported affirmative action.

At the end of the day my view is simple: playing off the fears of racists for your own personal and political gain isn't the worst thing anyone has ever done, and is probably the least bad of the "worst things" done by the other candidates.  Since he is clearly against a racist government system, in practice and in theory, I see this as a non sequitur to undermine his candidacy and little more, perpetuated by one disgruntled former associate (Dondero) and a media oriented towards a simplistic bipolar view of American political discourse.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

And the Paul people predictably are in denial. Whatever helps soothe the cognitive dissonance...

I suppose the Obama people were in denial about that fake birth certificate, too

U 4 REAL BRO

Sadly, MDB is very serious.

What about the State of Georgia subpoenaing Obama regarding said birth certificate situation? He didn't have the decency to answer said summons.

[The Mikado]

And the Paul people predictably are in denial. Whatever helps soothe the cognitive dissonance...

I suppose the Obama people were in denial about that fake birth certificate, too

U 4 REAL BRO

Sadly, MDB is very serious.

What about the State of Georgia subpoenaing Obama regarding said birth certificate situation? He didn't have the decency to answer said summons.

Seriously?  You think that the President of the United States should be open to subpoena?  Nixon wasn't, Clinton wasn't, Obama sure as hell isn't.  There is one legal route to deal with a sitting president: impeachment.  Impeachment and only impeachment.