Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to go back 40 years and put people on trial with 2011 rules for politically correct language is hardly fair. MKL was not a saint 40 years ago. to be truthful he is not a saint today.
and he did commit adultery. what part of ron paul's statements are false? so now the card is played against speech 50 years ago instead of what is said today?
40, 50 years???? Thought many of the Ron Paul newsletters were written in the 1990's. Think we are talking about 20 years or less. we are evaluating a job applicant for prez, does how long ago matter? Should we know as much as we can before voting?
I'm not exactly sure what the premise of the OP is, but I think the act of the press rehashing these old newsletters, has given a big boost to the Paul campaign. I would have never expected this much backlash against the media in defense of a Republican candidate.
I'm not exactly sure what the premise of the OP is, but I think the act of the press rehashing these old newsletters, has given a big boost to the Paul campaign. I would have never expected this much backlash against the media in defense of a Republican candidate.
And sadly, the only outlet reporting that he actually Didnt Storm Out of the CNN interview is a foreign paper.
And here is the unedited version where you can see that the interview ends cordially and without anyone "storming out" or cutting it short. He was clearly unhappy, but it obviously ended with both the reporter and Paul being polite to one another.
They have his name on them. "Personal responsibility", you know.
Personal responsibility means you are accountable for your actions.
Saying someone is responsible for anothers actions is just another way of saying you think it's okay for someone to run anothers life. That is control freak mentality.
People who understand the goings on of the newsletter know the author and then the editor are the ones responsible for the content. Ron Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters except he did say he had a moral responsibility for his name being on it. He has always been against the very same things that were said in the newsletter.
40, 50 years???? Thought many of the Ron Paul newsletters were written in the 1990's. Think we are talking about 20 years or less. we are evaluating a job applicant for prez, does how long ago matter? Should we know as much as we can before voting?
Yes we should. So why doesn't Ron Pauls life long policy of being against favors based on appearance mean more than something he had nothing to do with?
People look to make up dirt when their own candidates are failures.
I like Ron Paul and still think he offers the best real chance for change on the Republican ticket, but I believe this issue is going to 100% negatively effect his campaign among the general electorate. I don't count myself among the Ron Paul apologists, you have to be seriously brainwashed to think this is not going to have an impact. All he does is keep repeating he did not write them, he did not read them, and he disavows them. This is not a sysfactory answer, he needs to thoroughly and completely come lean about them. He needs to answer these questions: Who wrote them? When did he learn of them? Did he take any kind of disciplinary actions against the writer(s)? Why did he not, upon learning of their existence, issue an apology for them before the media called him on it? How much money, if any, did he really make from them? and most importantly, what actions has he taken to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Let's face it, if my name was on those letters, I would make damn sure I supported their content before they went out. Ron Paul Claiming ignorance of the content of those letters is no different than Eric Holder claiming no knowledge of Fast and Furious. I understand that an officer may have died due to Fast and Furious, But that should make Ron Paul's claimed ignorance of these letters even more worrisome, what if Paul was in a position that could jeopardize lives, and didn't bother to dig into the details?
To apologize and defend one while calling for the head of the other is political hypocrisy.
This is not a sysfactory answer, he needs to thoroughly and completely come lean about them. He needs to answer these questions: Who wrote them? When did he learn of them? Did he take any kind of disciplinary actions against the writer(s)? Why did he not, upon learning of their existence, issue an apology for them before the media called him on it? How much money, if any, did he really make from them? and most importantly, what actions has he taken to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Yes we should. So why doesn't Ron Pauls life long policy of being against favors based on appearance mean more than something he had nothing to do with?
People look to make up dirt when their own candidates are failures.
I don't think you can say he had nothing to do with them. They were in his newsletter, with his name on the banner header and he was selling them for profit. In other words he was benefiting financial by those bigoted words.
Hard to say he had nothing to do with them. He cannot even produce the writer, without naming the writer I will assume he wrote them and isn't man enough to take credit now.
I don't think you can say he had nothing to do with them. They were in his newsletter, with his name on the banner header and he was selling them for profit. In other words he was benefiting financial by those bigoted words.
Hard to say he had nothing to do with them. He cannot even produce the writer, without naming the writer I will assume he wrote them and isn't man enough to take credit now.
Well that would be living a bit ignorantly at this point since he said he didn't write them. Not that you should take everything that someone says at face value, I certainly don't, but the man has never said a racist word in his documented political career of speeches, emails, and interviews.
Personally I think he may have a hunch as to who wrote them, but probably doesn't have a way to prove/document it, which if he came out and said "I think it was so and so" would open him up to lawsuits I'm sure.
I see it as a no win situation, that even in the best case scenario still doesn't unquestionably identify and prove who the writer was.
Well that would be living a bit ignorantly at this point since he said he didn't write them. Not that you should take everything that someone says at face value, I certainly don't, but the man has never said a racist word in his documented political career of speeches, emails, and interviews.
Personally I think he may have a hunch as to who wrote them, but probably doesn't have a way to prove/document it, which if he came out and said "I think it was so and so" would open him up to lawsuits I'm sure.
I see it as a no win situation, that even in the best case scenario still doesn't unquestionably identify and prove who the writer was.
Why would he need to "say a racist word." His racism is well documented in his very own news letters. Plus, it's clear to any objective observer that he doesn't like Jews.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
