A dedication to Ron Paul

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

what does threatening iran and pakistan have to do with pro american national security?

you have it backwards. it was Iran threatening a US ship. while I dont believe it was a very big deal, I would rather have a president you can recognize a potential fo then pretend we are friends with an Islamic extremist government.

and when have we threatened pakistan?

my2hands

DPrival78 wrote:

other than some 15 year old newsletters that he may or may not have been involved with.

may or may not be involved with?

hahahahaha...

IT WAS HIS FUCKING NEWSLETTER

jlew24asu

my2hands wrote:

may or may not be involved with?

hahahahaha...

IT WAS HIS FUCKING NEWSLETTER

hands we obviously dont agree on much but its funny to see these paul supporters defend him.

what if bush had a similar newsletter? yikes.

ledvedderman

my2hands wrote:

may or may not be involved with?

hahahahaha...

IT WAS HIS FUCKING NEWSLETTER

I said this in another post, but I don't believe that Ron Paul is a pointy white hat klan member, BUT you guys expect people to vote for this guy for President of the United States when he can't even control a NEWSLETTER WITH HIS NAME ON IT .

Sounds like a perfect candidate for President to me.

As Gob would say, "Come on!!!"

DPrival78

my2hands wrote:

may or may not be involved with?

hahahahaha...

IT WAS HIS FUCKING NEWSLETTER

the question is the level of involvement. look, i understand that this junk went out under his name, and he bears at the very least some responsibility for it. it's very disappointing to me that his name is attached to it.

if we do come to find out for sure that he had any hand in writing this stuff then obviously i'll have to consider to, for yet another election, not support a candidate for president. i'm holding out judgement here because most of paul's policies are ones that i feel very strongly about, and i think his message is one that needs to be heard. multi-national, corporate interests are driving this country into the ground, and more war and more spending and more enforcement of things like the patriot act are not going to save us, and yet all the other major candidates are proponents of all of those things.

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

what if bush had a similar newsletter? yikes.

that would be a circus...

but honestly, a Bush newsletter like this would only prove what we already know

DPrival78

an article from the economist regarding the paul newsletter:

The Rockwell files

Posted by:
Economist.com | WASHINGTON

WOLF BLITZER today, speaking in gerund phrases, examining the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, interviewing the Republican presidential candidate, who claims not only that he had no hand in writing numerous racist and homophobic items that appeared under his name over a period of years, but that he does not know—or care—who did write them.

Mr Paul is probably not himself a racist, and many of the sentiments he expresses in his CNN interview are admirable. It is equally plausible that the hateful items published in his newsletter, so different in style from the congressman's own speech and writing, are not his handiwork. But his protestations of ignorance, both about what was being disseminated on his behalf and who was responsible, are much harder to credit.

While his statements sometimes leave the impression that Mr Paul simply licensed his name to people with whom he had little contact, there is much evidence to the contrary. The newsletters that appeared under his name were published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul's longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms. And according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul's newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute.

Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America. ("Look at Mises.org," Mr Tucker told me, "I'm willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?") According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian" strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort." It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.

This matters because, while Mr Paul may disavow the sentiments that were expressed under his name over the years, he has scarcely disavowed Mr Rockwell, who remains a friend and adviser. Mr Rockwell is one of the congressman's most vigorous online boosters, accompanied him to an appearance on The Tonight Show, and often publishes Mr Paul's writings on his Web site. Mr Paul now says the identity of his ghostwriter is of no importance. But if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that Mr Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views. The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.

Uncle Leo

DPrival78 wrote:

ok sorry, i left out gravel and kucinich. there are no other anti-war candidates, unless i'm forgetting someone else.

I am not a member of the Ron Paul Posse, but this is true. After you corrected yourself on Gravel and Kucinich, there are no other anti-war candidats. They might not be of the same degree of war mongerism as W, but they are not anti-war.