|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Was Paul's name on the newsletters? Are any of them called "The Ron Paul report?" Orly? |
| quote: |
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report |
?
| quote: |
"When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero." |
yes, i read the article. i remain unconvinced that someone publishing a newsletter under a name like "ron paul political report" is so oblivious to its contents, given that its contents REGULARLY delved into the subjects described. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Is Paul's name on the front of these newsletters? Are any of them called "The Ron Paul report?" Really?
|
In a word, yes.
In more than one word, are you really that dense?
Also from above:
| quote: | | Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter. |
So it's safe to say that, yes, his name was very much attached to those quotes even if there weren't bylines on the individual section headings. And as the original article states... even if Paul didn't write any of them (which isn't exactly what Benton stated, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now), why would he allow a decade's worth of diatribe like this to be published in a newsletter bearing his name, and his name only? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Pwnt on the title issue.
Still I doubt Paul would have given the interviews if he heard those comments about MLK beforehand.. I don't care how much I dislike a politician...using guilt by association is always a shady way to attack them. There are bound to be a few wackos supporting people like Paul and Kucinich, but this is only a distraction. It does not detract from their message, which is anything but "wacky".
Again, if you want to know Paul's views on everything from racism to war..economics, this is the best place to start. He has written extensively on these issues. I'm sure you can find much to disagree with, but you won't find an ounce of racism or any claim that the US government carried out the 9-11 attacks:
No third party wrote this stuff. No newsletter author. It is straight from the horses mouth:
Ron Paul Archives |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It the beginning of every section you bolded, we see "a newsletter wrote"..yadda yadda yadda. This is like me pulling out the People's Daily communist newspaper and using their quotes to bash Hillary. The fact that they share a few guiding principles (more government, national healthcare, etc) does NOT mean they share the same views on much else...It does not mean she is a pure Marxist... |
BTW... the fact that you selected the most moderate Democratic candidate to label communist really shows your intellectual machismo on the subject.
| quote: | | You are claiming guilt by association, and this is a very dishonest way to attack Paul. |
I'm sorry for associating Ron Paul with what is written in the Ron Paul Newsletter.
| quote: | | If you want to bash him, I suggest you look through his own writings. |
I did. Both here and in the thread you conveniently deleted because you looked bad.
| quote: | | a a $12 trillion+ debt, more loss of freedoms, loss of privacy, more socialism, more currency debasement, more war, more US troop deaths, more enemies created overseas... |
Question: have you been following any of the other campaigns at all? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
BTW... the fact that you selected the most moderate Democratic candidate to label communist really shows your intellectual machismo on the subject. |
Hillary is a moderate? :eek:
News to me...and yeah I've been following the other campaigns. I just see nothing appealing in the others running. They are all status-quo huge government candidates. They all have no problem with the fed...no real desire to end the IRS, no plan to bring our troops home from the 800 military bases overseas. They all want to expand federal power to record levels, and they only disagree on WHERE it should be expanded..not "IF" it should be expanded. Paul was the lone voice on this question. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Hillary is a moderate? :eek: |
Absolutely. Look at her positions and compare them to the other candidates. The liberal base hates her - if it wasn't for the moderate DLC her campaign would have been over long ago. Edwards and Obama are splitting the progressive vote right now, but if there were only one major liberal candidate in contention Hillary would be down twenty points nationally.
| quote: | | News to me...and yeah I've been following the other campaigns. I just see nothing appealing in the others running. They are all status-quo huge government candidates. They want to expand federal power to record levels...and they only disagree on WHERE it should be expanded..not "IF" it should be expanded. Paul was the lone voice on this. |
I don't know that you've looked that closely at Obama, Dodd, Biden, or Edwards, all of whom want to drastically limit the power of the Executive, scale back American foreign policy (reasonably rather than willy-nilly), and reduce overall federal spending.
For a decent speech Obama gave on the subject this summer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/u...r=1&oref=slogin |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
Ah, so his defense is that he didn't realize what was being done in his name over the course of a decade... and that if he did, he just didn't bother to do anything about it. Precisely the kind of blind faith in his underlings that I would want in a President... I'm sure Alberto Gonzalez and Brownie would agree.
edit: and just out of curiosity, have you ever gone straight to the HRC campaign website to see what she has to say to contradict reporting that casts her in a negative light? I imagine you would say that her defense is not to be trusted, that it is just... oh, politics? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
I'm sorry for associating Ron Paul with what is written in the Ron Paul Newsletter. |
:haha: :haha: |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
lez, every democrat since the beginning of time has campaigned on "getting spending under control"...I've learned to ignore this little campaign promise. And sorry, I just can't stand the sight of Hillary so I won't visit her website :p
If Paul drops out, it looks like I'm going for Obama. At this point, I'm happy to help the democrats win. I'd rather live with a little more socialism than be dead due to the insane amount of blowback we'll be getting in a few years in response to the Bush policies.. The neocons have hijacked a major party in the United States and they must be stopped before they can do any more damage.
Obama has been opposed to the Iraq war from day one (unlike Hillary) so he is probably our best hope of getting out of there. He won't go as far as Ron Paul in bringing our troops home from the 70+ countries they currently occupy, but at least he will be a step in the right direction.
I'll still be supporting RP because he is really shaking up the republican party. His message has served as a wake up call to many people...and I think there now is a civil war going on between neocons and "paleo-cons". The party is going to CRACK because of this, and is going to have an absolutely devastating loss in November. For this reason alone, it is important to keep Paul in the race as long as possible and to spread his message far and wide.
The GOP needs to realize what a huge mistake they have made, and to realize just how far they have strayed from their principles. This means they need to feel a LOT of pain in the next few elections, and be relegated to a laughable minority in congress. It's going to take a humiliating defeat to purge the neocon philosophy from government, and Paul is doing a better job splitting the party than any democrat could possibly hope for. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
lez, every democrat since the beginning of time has campaigned on "getting spending under control"...I've learned to ignore this little campaign promise. And sorry, I just can't stand the sight of Hillary so I won't visit her website :p
|
Not exactly sure what you're talking about.
| quote: | | Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and Congress, allowed for a balanced budget (when the Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated and, afterwards, a surplus which actually allowed the retirement of some government debt. |
| quote: | | n his final State of the Union, President Clinton said the USA should continue to balance its books and pay off the debt entirely. The subsequent technology downturn which began impacting the economy in mid-2000 combined with lost revenue from the Bush Administration's tax cuts as well as the cost to the country from the 9/11 attack and increased spending for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have eliminated Clinton-era surpluses and both the deficit and debt have grown to the largest in US history. In fiscal years starting 30 September 2001 and ending 30 September 2006 the national debt increased nearly 50%. |
Pulled from this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment
Democrats are demonized for spending - but the biggest spenders in US history have been Reagan and Bush, the two Presidents most Republicans idolize. Obama and Biden both based their domestic campaign strategy on eliminating the deficit and alleviating burdens placed on taxpayers... one of the many reasons I have a feeling that would be a ticket should Obama still pull out the nomination. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Democrats are demonized for spending - but the biggest spenders in US history have been Reagan and Bush, the two Presidents most Republicans idolize. Obama and Biden both based their domestic campaign strategy on eliminating the deficit and alleviating burdens placed on taxpayers... one of the many reasons I have a feeling that would be a ticket should Obama still pull out the nomination. |
I knew I wrote this somewhere. :) |
|
|
|
|
