Added: 4 years ago
From: egarris99
Views: 14,938
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (250)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The little Bircher creep Paul just lies like the rest of the gop clowns trying to get the tea bagger moron vote. Paul has the White Supremacist vote locked up already, he always has.

  • Nice shifty eyes and stammering, Ron. The people in your district do know about the newsletters. My dad got them and he's a wingnut. 20 years and you didn't know anything about them? $49.95 a year and you didn't look into why 18,000+ people were subscribers? CONSPIRACY!!! Too bad tin foil isn't manufactured in your district still.

  • Paul is a

  • Sure Dr Paul libertarian view is gaining traction and rightly so . But he must take responsibility for these news letters , denying any knowledge just does not wash and is hurting his cred .

  • @hartstarter he tried that in 1996, but he took responsibility for them by attacking the naacp and then defending them on the basis that they were true

  • @redpunk

    He has never attacked the NAACP

    SHOW YOUR SOURCES or you are a PAUL HATER TROLL.

  • NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

    Sunday, January 13,

    2008

    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.

    cafemom. com/group/99198/forums/read/15­593981/NAACP_President_Ron_Pau­l_Is_Not_A_Racist

  • @sophiah88 NAACP President Linder: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

    "I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint, why people are attacking him," .

    "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you & they're going to take it out of context,"

    "What he's saying is really threatening the powers that be & that's what they fear," . cafemom. com/group/99198/forums/read/15­­593981/NAACP_President_Ron_Pa­u­l_Is_Not_A_Racist

  • @sophiah88 to quote ron paul "what kind of a world is it that we're living in where people attack your character and the only thing that matters is what the NAACP thinks about you?"

    though i probably mussed it up. the actual quote is in a 1996 edition of the dallas star where he admits to having written all that racist crap

  • @redpunk

    bring it

    post the link here

    no quotes allowed with out LINKS from reliable SOURCES

    you are truly a RED one, grinnnnn.....

  • @redpunk

    show the LINK or you lie.

  • @sophiah88 how about you read the may 22, 1996 edition of the dallas morning news?

  • @redpunk

    how about you post a link ?

    TROLL

  • These people that are called the "media" are nothing but dogs seeking a place to piss on. Please explain to me you ignorantly blind propagandists... a person who seeks the freedom of all people through liberty,"AS A RACIST". Someone who's disapproved all segregations of people immensely in federal gov and be framed as overly "demo/non-repub".Why is Paul all of a sudden competing with other overly Conservatives with racism. This is political blasphemy towards a humble peace speaking politican.

  • this man is the worst liar in the world

  • Hey, Ron Paul backers, here is a suggestion. Why doesn't Ron Paul start asking what Obama was doing 20 years ago? No one knows what Obama did from 1980 to the year 2000! Obama has either sealed, burned or shredded all of his past. He only held one job in his lifetime. So, who paid for his room, board, clothes, travel, and especially, who paid for all the schooling he got here in the USA? Everyone's past is up for grabs except for Obama. Go ahead, ask Obama a question, just bring it up.

  • Goes to show how low they will go. This required the "keenness" of Jewry and a Talmudic microscope. You don't even have to dig up dirt on the other candidates. Their poo stains can be spotted from a light year away.

  • The guy is 76 years old ... working on his 4th decade in politics... and this is the only "dirt" they can find?

    This is all they've got??? He didn't write the articles!

    Did Jeremiah Wright matter?

    Vote Ron Paul.

  • And just think folks, this was the kind of flak he received in 2008. It's the same song and dance all over again. Is everyone recognizing these patterns now? Is everyone awake yet? Or do we still have some folks sleeping at the wheel?

  • Looks like all the Propaganda Media Stream has is what his opponents brought up every time he ran for Congress!!

    What we would like to see is at least 1 of the readers of the newsletters come forward and state that this was actually in the newsletters. Why do journalists no longer do any research? To our knowledge NOT 1 reader has come forward and said there was anything like this in these newsletters. The first time the magically appeared was by an opponent when Ron Paul ran for office!!

  • @NoBailout4Banksters - While you are at it read this article written by one of the Conspirators Against Ron Paul from 2008 campaign. By the way, isn't it ironic that the newsletters were given to TNR by Bill White who is not only a RACIST but an informer for the FBI?

    Sure does NOT make sense why a RACIST would be the one to present these newsletters in question to be used to discredit somebody that they supposedly supported!!

    tinyurl(.)com/64fs84r

  • Oh look, it is Mr.Magoo denying his is responsible for anything in HIS newsletters.

    What a lying sack.

  • @Neoconhater

    Let me guess. You believe the only reason Obama didn't deliver any "hope & change"(TM) yet is beacuse the Corporations, Republicans, and Decepticons kidnapped the real Obama and replaced him with evil impostor.

    Am I close?

  • @saper321 George W Obama

  • @Neoconhater

    You are using a straw man argument, it's a logical fallacy.

    He admitted he had a moral responsibility to pay more close attention to what is written in his name, and that's true. But I believe him when he says he didn't write them, and I also believe him when he said that it goes against his character and everything he has ever said. Ron Paul is no racist.

  • @diggingforgold I agree, 10 million percent!

  • @Neoconhater You name implies Neoconhater, you don't sound like one here? wat up.

  • @johnnycmajor Typical absurd bulltripe from a lame PaulBot.

    Just because I hate your little racist hero makes me a neocon lover? You're so full of crap it is just astounding.

  • @Neoconhater You will get over it, no choice really. Merry Xmas to you,  nothing personal.

  • @johnnycmajor Nope. Again, just because I think Paul is a loser doesn't make me a neocon lover....piss off and have a lousy holiday.

  • @Neoconhater Get a job.

  • @johnnycmajor Is that all you've got?

    Jive ass racist Paul supporters are just getting desperate to hide the facts.

    Paul is pure scum, Bircher far right disgusting racist scum.......and you love him.

    How sad for you and your family...eh?

  • @Neoconhater Your an odd duck. Haters will Hate.

  • @johnnycmajor Yes, I m very proud to hate the neocon madmen, thanks for noticing!

    And yes, I HATE bigots like Ron Paul, again, thanks for understanding that fact.

    He hated MLK. He hated Rosa Parks. All the racists like Paul hate anyone that isn't a white Christian male.

  • @Neoconhater I would ask you to watch this video and there is more like it.

    The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul if you type that in you tube it should bring the vid up.

  • @johnnycmajor ron paul admitted to writing them six years ago

  • @redpunk

    SOURCE ??

  • @redpunk He never did , what the hell are you reading.

  • @Neoconhater

    This is a passle of lies!

    He voted FOR MLK day & often praised MLK

    He has said Rosa Parks is one of his heroes

    your posting such BLATANT LIES show agenda you pursue even to stooping to being a LIAR on global internet.

    You are quick to use the word HATE

    In multitudinous interview questions about lies told about him Ron Paul has NEVER used the word HATE . Where it is used he says his attackers dont mean it but might use gentler words to express themselves.

    CLASS !

  • @sophiah88 He voted against MLK Day.

    He HATED MLK big time. He told Rosa he seat was in the back of the bus.

    Paul will never be president.......of anything but his local White Pride chapter.

    The little racist creep sucks ass.

  • @Neoconhater

    The facts prove you are a liar.

    you post the same lies because you have no real facts to toss onto the HONORABLE Dr. Ron Paul

    You are a TROLL here to di the dirty work of the hasbara

    judas would love you and your kind.

  • @sophiah88 is trying to coopt credit for champus and then complaining about how the kids are fucking each other and therefore deserve to die of aids really all that honorable?

    or is it more honorable to screw over the national economy so that the literally millions of dollars you've invested into gold and silver mining will finally pay off?

  • @redpunk

    this post of yours in unintelligible and devoid of any links to help clear up what you are attempting to convey

    but then you are a TROLL.

  • @Neoconhater

    this is obviously made up BS

    you have no creativity

    why did hasbara hire you when you cant  even concoct semi believable lies.

  • 4 years later, here we go again.... here we fucking go...

  • @redcomic619 LOL let them wear themselves out Ron Paul has never verbally stated any of this crap , he takes a total opposite stance, we know the media bias, we just got to let them play it out and stick up for Ron Paul without getting too upset about the ole newsletter that he never wrote.

  • how do you ronbots accept that "i didnt know" as an answer you never accept that if its any one else. "ron paul is america's only hope" god help us.

  • @rockinandout

    I like Ron Paul beacuse I can pretty much predict how his presidency would look like. He would veto every bill. He would try to cut funding for all government program, but Congress would stop him and after 4 years he would get kicked out for being "heartless" and replaced by a "compassionate liberal" that once in office would promptly resume the war on brown people.

  • @rockinandout He made a point he has never verbally said anything like that in his life, and look at what he does say. Not what some jokers where writing.

  • he give me chills!! love this guy!!!! 

  • Comment removed

  • I love that he mentions being left out of the debate coverage on Fox. The media really doesn't want us to know about Ron Paul. They're afraid of the change he could bring us. Ron Paul 2012!

  • CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX... all owned by people who back Dems/Reps, fucking smear job. I recently heard our system described as two gangsters at an illegal card game. Both accusing each-other of cheating and lying... but once their illegal game is threatened by outsiders they stand by one another's sides and start pointing at the outsider... This is the current system we are trapped in with the criminal activities of the Democrats and Republicans.

  • Anyone who has studied Ron Paul and his philosophy would clearly understand that these are not his words. Ron Paul is a true fighter for the individual, and does not see the world through race colored lenses. The media and his opponents bring up these few newsletters up to make him look like a bigot. If this is all they can find to make him look bad, then that truly says something good about Ron Paul's character. He has never spoken remotely close to what was said in those few newsletters.

  • @Star16 Nahh! He's a bigot, and he's proud of it.

    No one published newsletters for a few decades and has no clue what the content is.

    Paul's a lying sack of crap, and a racist little creepy chump.

  • @Star16 the newsletters aren't all they can find to attack paul with. there's also his affiliations with the john birch society, his posing with the folks from stormfront, his involvement with the cato institute, there's his investment record, there's his voting record, there's a newspaper interview where he defends having written said newsletters, there's the fact that he's cool with selling off the national parks to gas prospectors, and i'm running out of characters :<

  • @redpunk

    any one of these so called sins of Ron Paul have been dissected to minutia elsewhere

    there was never any meat in any one of them

    sorry you are so out of the info loop

    oh loopie one

    TROLL without links or proven facts

    just mumbo jumbo opinions

  • @sophiah88 no they haven't. saying "i didn't do it" is the sort of crap bart simpson pulls, except bart simpson doesn't half assedly stumble through his words whilst bullshitting on the fly.

    then there's also the matter of his actual affiliations with people like the julius streicher fan club and CATO.

    it should say something when your super smart doctor of a candidate is willing to endorse the opinion that tobacco smoke is cancer free and cigs should rightfully be marketed to kids

  • @Star16 there's also the prodigal amount of bitching he does over "demagoguery" but then pull that gambit where he bashed obama for toning down tricare but failed to mention that they were planning to transfer veterans over the medicare once they became legally elligible to recieve it.

    there's also that ad he ran with the black guy talking about his wife. google "newport, arkansas" and "champus". it honestly wouldn't be that far fetched if his commander had to force him to do his job

  • i want to believe mr paul. However i simply dont care i know he would never pass a law causing any racial inequality so have fun crack as many jokes as you want.

  • I love how the Paultards have no answer to

    what happened to the millions donated to his

    campaign, and have no problem with him saying that he didn't write the racist crap in his newsletters but has no idea who did or any way of finding out who did in something run by HIS OFFICE! I really wanted to support him

    until I see him not even having enough

    integrity to name the person WORKING FOR

    HIM that wrote it, if it wasn't him. Sad.

  • He started the Campaign for Liberty.

  • WOW. After 11 months do these morons understand he is our last hope. Obama has really started the fascist machine will pseudo socialism as its guise. The Bank-Military-Corporate complex is out to route us of all that makes life worth living. Ron made sense then and he makes even more sense after the fact. Shame on you fools for doubting him, look at his voting record since the 70's, its the most consistent of all politicians still in congress. You fell for Obummer,not me.

  • Where's the money Ron?

    Tens of millions in donations before he chickened out.

    What happened to that money, or has he forgotten about that too?

    I'm ashamed that I fell for it. Paul is just another in a long line of shills, shame on him for stealing all those donations.

  • The money is given to the party at large to use, donated to charity, or set aside for the next time the candidate runs for public office (i.e. Ron Paul 2012).

    If you're so concerned, why don't you write the Senator and ask, instead of making wild accusations.

    And yes, what a thief. The man has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay, never voted to raise taxes, never taken a government-paid junket and returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

  • Write to a politician?

    Only if someone can show me how I can disinfect my mail when I get a response.

  • They are two possibilities,

    1. Ron Paul is a racist and a liar.

    or

    2. He's an idiot to lend his own name to a new letter he doesn't even read.

  • I'll go with the latter.... minus the "idiot" part.

  • You got that right....great comment

  • @Rapprah alot of people who have news letters do that.....

    i think you are the idiot for not understanding that fact

  • i find hes actually more direct than most of those presidential puppets,next thing you know they;re going to have clips of him using blonde jokes in his speeches and confronting him on his anti-blondness..

  • CNN thinks this is important,but the hateful words of Reverend Wright is a distraction from the issues.Bias a**holes.Please get your news from FOX.I'm more of a liberal,but I don't believe in pushing my views down others throats.You will never get the TRUTH from CNN.

  • How about one of the following choices

    A: hearing OPINION from broadcast and print media outlets which AFFIRM one's own views, whichever side of the political divide it may lie,

    (i) IF affirmation is what one wants most, and

    (2) IF one dismisses all dissenting opinion as 'biased';

    or

    B: hearing OPINION from different sides, IF one can handle it;

    or

    C: separating FACT from OPINION--performing the chore by oneself, instead of demanding that everyone else do it.

  • ermineermine: One man spam brigade? Yes.

    The newsletters are 10-20 years old. He was just reelected to congress again.

    If Ron Paul is unfit to be president, a president is unfit to lead America.

  • Evidently, the electorate disagree with you--his electoral district does not mind him as Representative, but extremely few elsewhere see him fit to be President.

  • who cares all of it is pretty much rigged and bullshit soo??

  • 1 You are free to not cast your vote--about half of the electorate do the same.

    2 Notwithstanding #1, decisions can still be--and is actually--made by those who show up.

    3 Ron The Gynecologist himself 'cares' enough to submit himself to the verdict of those in #2.

  • "I don't think of people in groups." "I have more black people than any other GOP candidate..."

    Sorry, Ron, your case for color-blindness just doesn't hold up.

    If any Ron Paul robots want to thumbs down me, go ahead. It would be an honor to be despised by brainwashed cretins like you. You give libertarianism a bad name.

  • Context buddy, context. If someone says he's a racist, it's a fair in his defense to bring up a stat like that to shot down such an allegation. He doesn't go around talking about this for his campaign, this was in his own defense for a specific reason.

  • It is fair to defend oneself from criticism, but that doesn't mean that your defense holds much weight. His supporters in that demographic group may not know of his newsletters, or choose not to believe them for the sake of not feeling like they've been fooled. Some might not even care, even though they obviously should. And he is talking about this for his campaign if he's talking about these allegations on TV with the goal of defending his campaign.

  • And as for him being "color-blind", I don't buy it, as he obviously is using the races of his supporters as a criteria of whether or not he is or isn't a racist when he just stated that he doesn't think of people in groups. Ron Paul is a typical politician, and no typical politician ever thinks of supporters in anything but groups. And as for these accusations, he either is racist himself, doesn't mind racists speaking under his name, or doesn't care to read what his own newsletters said.

  • Listen to what Ron Paul says in this video. They are old, he didn't write the material, he's been elected to congress many times even after these were brought up. When you're a career politician, something like this can happen. He wasn't in charge of who wrote them, he didn't hire and fire people to do it. Out of thousands of newsletters he probably only read a few and not all of the content anyway. This is old news and it should remained so, but I think there are people behind this.

  • So, he barely bothered to read the newsletters under his own name to see what was put under his own name?! Don't you think for once someone would have said "uh, Ron, I think you should take a look at this..."? If he didn't hold these opinions as you say, wouldn't he have provided some sort of recanting or apology for some of these statements? Wouldn't he have fired the people who wrote them. It seems he is either lazy or does actually support all that was said in the newsletters. I think both.

  • He did not even own a controlling share; he lent his name for a fee. He made an error; so what of it? Tell me, what was in those letters so despicable that it cannot be forgiven. We worship brave men like Dr. King, and forgive his trespasses against his wife and academic integrity. Ron Paul has stood solid in his commitment to what everyone finds so easy to discard. The Constitution; if you don't like it he says change it, don't ignore it. A newsletter cannot dull such a common sense msg.

  • A person is only as good as their word and their name.A person used to publicize hate or discrimination has no place in a government designed to respect and protect diversity.Dr. King never professed hate against any group of people.He also wasn't running for the highest office in the country.I don't know if he is racist but the fact is that inflammatory remarks made by a person in a position of power must be carefully checked.He failed to do so and doesn't assume responsibility.

  • The government was not designed to protect diversity... it was built to ensure liberty. Ron Paul has also never professed hate toward any group, even professing a profound respect for the man Dr. King, albeit not all of his socialist ideas. When his newsletters were out, he could hardly be considered in a position of power. Those remarks were not his, but of staff on a newsletter of which he had no editorial oversight. He assumes responsibility for lending his name to the newsletter.

  • He was a politician when they came out- otherwise why use his name? The hate professed in the letters was done in his name. Even I would know what is done or said with my name attached to it. I don't claim he is hateful - I don't personally know the man or his character. Carelessness is carelessness.One of the major ways the public gets to know a politician is through their writings, speeches, and records. Just like candidates have to assume responsibility for any ads in their name,so the words.

  • Actually he was a practicing physician when the letters came out. His name was used as a marketing tool after his Libertarian run for the presidency in 1988. The newsletters ran from 1989 to 1994 while he was out of Congress. He lent his name for the purpose of spreading conservative libertarian philosophy. He has taken responsibility, and alas many of you use the letters as a rallying point when it is probably the liberty message that is opposed.

  • Ensure liberty by protecting the freedom of religion, culture, etc...-diversity. He was a politician otherwise why use the name? And carelessness with your name as a public official is carelessness. I can't speak on his personal beliefs or character. But several newsletters of that nature never warranting his attention is odd. As evidenced, any negativity associated with a politician can make or break a career. And the public demands accountability from them.

  • What if we were not diverse? Would we by any less free? Diversity is enabled by liberty, but it is not necessary to be free. As is witnessed by your belief he was in government during the letters' publication, the public demanded nothing but simply swallowed what they were fed.

  • Diversity is a result of freedom as exemplified by totalitarian governments. The first thing they enforce is uniformity. Any free society affords the people the freedom to be diverse. And after a person is in the spotlight, especially as a presidential candidate they do possess notoriety. Otherwise his name would'nt have been used. It was advertised as the name of a former candidate not a no name physician. I'm not discrediting him as a candidate but the public should'nt just swallow anything.

  • People can also be free to be the same. Are you not swallowing what the media served up? I knew of the letters long before the media started serving up their sound bites. The same treatment that Obama's minister got. Sound bites that many of us agreed with. Chickens home to roost, letter or not.

  • You obviously don't list to the man.

  • Vote for the president who tells the truth, not all these idiots cheating to get votes...clinton buying out myspace, obama saying the same thing over and over, mccain and his cocky attitude and his love of war.....but theres a guy named ron paul who cares about you and this country..why wouldn't you vote for him?

    Think about that before you vote

  • Ron Paul Rocks! He's the ONLY hope for the USA!

    Don't believe a word of this smear propaganda! Look at Ron Paul's voting record over the past 30 years and you'll see just the opposite of a racist!

    Ron is the ONLY honest man running for president in 2008!

    PERIOD!

    I've done MY homework!! Do yours!

  • This man is amazing, he has more energy than I do and Im a young adult.

  • Impressive response from Paul.

  • NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, says Ron Paul Is Not A Racist.

  • You mean the president of a CHAPTER of the NAACP.

  • He wasn't the editor. He lent his name to a newsletter that was supposed to espouse libertarian conservatism. He got used. You can nitpick anyone but who else will free all federal offenders of drug abuse 'crimes'?

  • Much of the stuff in there was written as if it WAS Ron Paul who wrote it. Hell, there was one which was signed "Ron Paul" which spoke of a coming race war and spoke of his experience as a physician. Hmm...

  • in b4 drug wars, amirite?

  • Isn't it irresponsible to lend your name to a publication which you know nothing about? After all, the paper could be espousing dispicable points of view.....

  • You lend your name to a newsletter or any other publication. Shouldn't you look at what they say? Wouldn't someone you know say "hey, it seems some of the things your guys wrote might not sit well with your or the average person..."? The case for his innocence in this issue faces a pretty uphill battle.

  • DANIELINRALEIGH:

    > lend your name to a publication.

    > Shouldn't you look at what they say?

    > Wouldn't someone you know say

    > [something about] the things your guys wrote?

    There is a difference between

    A: LEADERSHIP--managing followers

    and

    B: FRANCHISING YOUR NAME--to those who just happen to share many of your prejudices and have their respective agenda as well

    . . .

  • The Gynecologist is no leader any more than || the charlatan who overtakes a rushing mob

    || in order to 'lead' them towards the direction

    || they were already heading.

    Do you think he knows every detail of the antics indulged in by what someone described as 'THE RON PAUL SPAM BRIGADE'? No.

    Has he a fair idea? Yes. Can he have someone check if he cared? Yes.

    Does he care enough to check? No, not as long as he remains untainted. Does he rebuke? No.

    . . .

  • What does all this prove? MANAGERIAL INCOMPETENCE.

    It makes him unfit to be Chief of the Executive Branch and unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

    All this shows how The Gynecologist is good in berating others but

    1 does not manage his own affairs competently

    2 denies responsibility for any failures

    3 takes no measures to prevent recurrence.

    No wonder his candidacy flopped.

  • Ron Paul pointed out the vast discrimination in the judicial sentencing of blacks and minorities to prison for non-violent drug crimes at a right 3x higher than what whites are punished for. Ron Paul will end that form of discrimination if he's elected, as well as many other forms. You will not hear any other candidates take these types of issues head on. Ron Paul is the only candidate with enough bravado and common sense to do it.

  • As a Ron Paul supporter, I am quite dismayed by the stuff in the newsletters. I think Ron Paul has not been completely honest about it, and that really disappoints me, because I thought he was a rare exception to the rule of politicians lacking integrity. Nevertheless, what he says is also true -- his libertarian message, and agenda on things like ending the "War on Drugs" are just the opposite of racist. So I say vote for the message, not the man.

  • Back in the 80s, I worked at one of the groups that Ron Paul had allowed to use his name. There were more than 6 other groups using his name as well.

    There were numerous writers putting out articles, direct mail and answering letters under Ron Paul's, and other politicians names.

    Even the president of the group didn't review all the material, and almost none of it was ever sent on to Ron Paul's congressional office.

  • There was no way Ron Paul could have reviewed everything published under his name. Even the editor of a major Newspaper doesn't read every item prior to publication, let alone the publisher.

    These items were written by one of the dozens of people who wrote under Ron Paul's name for at least 8 different groups, that I know of.

    Ron Paul has acted responsibly by rejecting and repudiating the racist comments once he was made aware of them. That's the best anyone could do.

  • The gynecologist cannot be accused of racism in this case.

    This case only highlights the fact that he is incompetent in managing those who work under his name.

    Each standard is relevant to the question of fitness for a position of responsibility such as the Presidency.

  • Of course you realize that I could very happily start publishing newsletters under YOUR name, create YOUR MySpace account, blog on YOUR behalf, build a website on YOUR behalf, and start spamming all of creation with emails and letters to editors claiming to be from you. Have fun finding and approving all of it. He repudiates the newsletters, and shows no evidence of actively pursuing a racially biased agenda in law or personal action. Good enough.

  • Valiant attempt but wrong excuse--unfortunately, neither IMPERSONATION nor IDENTITY THEFT is alleged in this case.

    This is about a man who GLADLY AND KNOWINGLY LENDS HIS NAME, and REAPS THE BENEFITS without BOTHERING TO MONITOR--as said, a case of INCOMPETENT MANAGEMENT.

    And if he is incompetent in managing those who work under his name, what does that say about his competence as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

  • Respectfully, have you checked his voting record? Through his votes, he has sided with the NAACP fairly often on legislation they found to be important to their interests. My point is that if you were a state elected official, I believe you'd have a hard time keeping track of all the stuff sent out in your name by folks who do and don't work for you. His record stands, pure and simple. Read his 04/16/2007 speech to Congress and that should clue you in to his stand on race and government.

  • With all due respect, I am not accusing The Gynecologist of RACISM.

    I am pointing out that this reveals

    1 his MANAGERIAL INCOMPETENCE (scroll up to review the difference between this case and a case of impersonation or identity theft)

    and what it inevitably reveals about

    2 his fitness for the responsibilities of Chief of the Executive Branch.

    . . .

  • > his stand on government

    That one has never been in doubt--

    > "BERATE and ABOLISH".

    "BERATE--except when it is his own incompetence that is exposed. In which case do not berate, but disclaim responsibility and make excuses.

    "ABOLISH--except the posts he himself seeks to occupy."

    SAME CONCLUSION: unfit to be President.

  • I agree with you on that one. I should also add that if these racially collectivist and derogatory remarks did indeed get published with his involvement or consent, then he's finishing out the Republican nomination in an appropriate position.

  • Kudos to Wolf Blitzer, he is one MSM guy who has been very fair to Ron Paul

  • I think it is wonderful that Wolf Blitzer and CNN gave Ron Paul the opportunity to repudiate these allegations. Ron Paul stated that anyone who knows him, knows that articles such as this would be totally out of character. Has anyone ever HEARD him say ANYTHING that would lead one to believe that he would endorse such views as implied in these news letters? If I heard proof, I would lose faith in his integrity, but until I do...Go Ron Paul in 2008!

  • Man, why wouldn't he read his own newsletter, seems like he was setting himself up. Ron Paul supporters think he's the golden boy that can do NOTHING wrong.

  • As if those news letters where wrong?

  • people talk by boring racist talk about issue ,USA downfall when clinton back whos run by freaking lobbiest and pandering illegal alien for buying votng fraud..unamerica

  • if somebody again the war vote RP if u wanna get ripp off vote the most crook psycho LIAR clinton!!

  • I agree there should be some oversight on a publication bearing your name, but you can see how it pissed ron off coz it's against what he has believed for decades. He sure got his back up about it. Don't piss Paul off!

  • All of this garbage was refuted in the New York Times a while ago, as someone probably mentioned. It wasn't 20 years worth of news letters either, it was only a few different issues. Besides the point, the TIMING of this article being released on New Hampshire's voting day just makes it so terrible obvious that I really can't believe anyone would buy it, I mean... cmon, it's common sense.

  • Ron Paul is the only Republican on stage against racism. Paul is the anti Racist. RP 08

  • I would've even care if at one point in his life he went through a racist faze. It's those who lose their way and come back home who are the most wise, loving and compassionate.

  • You can't stop spamming these videos? How fucking bored are you?

    How 'bout you go get a second job and actually do something productive.

  • Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. Ron Paul

  • Anyone who cannot differentiate those comments from the message of individualism that Ron Paul has been upholding for 30 years, doesn't want to. A kindergartener could tell the difference. Talk about passing him through the fire. They don't have a thing on him, and they're desperately digging.

  • well in that case Ron Paul is the first racist i've ever heard of who's hero is Martha Luther King.

    Come on, give it up. You trolls have lost and you know it.

  • The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul was betrayed by staffers who are no longer part of his staff.

    He made a mistake to trust those in his employ who wrote these racist remarks. He has accepted responsibility for allowing it to happen.

    How many employers have had to face the mistakes that they have made in the people that they trusted to employ? Many.

    Yes, the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul made a mistake, or mistakes, in this case. He is human.

    He is NOT a racist nor does he practice racism.

  • I thought Wolf Blitzewr was quite fair in this interview. He simply put out the allegations and let Dr. Paul explain. That's what a good journalist should do. These smears really do not make any sense. It is so clear that what was written in those "newsletters" is the antithesis of everything Ron Paul has been saying for decades. I have been paying attention to Ron Paul for almost 20 yrs. and have never heard him say anything even remotely racist. Ever.

  • From the link below, an article on the invasive practices of recent census-

    "The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie." Ron Paul

    Pretty evolved viewpoint for a politician don't you think?

  • h t t p : / / w w w . house. gov /paul /tst /tst2004 /tst071204.htm

    This is an obvious hit job using a long ago cleared up story- if you know Paul's writings and speeches and general character, you know this is crap. Check out the above link (eliminate the spaces) to observe some of Paul's REAL comments.

  • Just what you would expect...The only candidate that can save the people, slammed. Wake up. We are running out of time!

  • 1. Ron Paul didn't write it, it's not his philosophy

    2. WHO CARES WHO WROTE IT! NO MATTER HOW UNSAVORY THE SPEECH, IT IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

    Yeah that article is crap, none the less the US guarentees freedom of speech.

  • When the MSM wants to redirect your attention they say look at this - rather than discuss issues. This is real rabbit chasing designed to mislead the masses.

  • For more information just read "newsletter controversy" on Ron Paul's wikipedia page.

    This is no new news I read this half a year ago when I first heard of Paul. It is clear that his opponents during earlier year just have had to fabricate bad publicity since they couldn't find any dirt about him.

    It have been clear that Paul have refuted writing these articles from the beginning. Therefor it is amazing that the media bring then up at all and now

  • I wish Ron Paul would name the editor and some of the writers, or do a better job of explaining how this happened. I know Ron Paul is not a racist but people are going to keep making these claims if he doesn't offer a better explanation.

  • there going to keep trying to stop this guy the media and the government are afraid of ron paul the anti ron paul group is out there the constitution was made to protect us from the government not to protect the government from the people. if your happy with the war, the patroit act the war on drugs and the national id card then DON"T VOTE FOR RON PAUL he wants america to become stronger from the inside out not by protecting dictators

  • He's right....NOBODY that knows Ron Paul and has studied his writings is going to believe he wrote that. Go Ron!

  • Half Truth's, and lies? You have no evidence to back up that claim, because he has been completely honest through the years. And, his voting record is historical proof of his integrity. So, please tell me where you get your facts from?

  • Over the span of 20 years some articles were ghost written.This issue was dealt with in Texas and found invalid.This is an exaggeration and misrepresentation to discredit Ron Paul.Dirty poliltics are pathetic.

  • Ron has been standing up to the neocons.their the ones attacking using their perception management technics.ron is defending the constitution-see the american freedom agenda act he wrote for passgae to restore it.

  • You clearly get your news in soundbites and not by reading. A decent understanding of history would serve you well. If that sounds condescending then good. I challenge you to prove your claim via voting records of Congressman Paul or something else with that much evidential clout.

  • Im a black ron paul supporter and have had a chance to talk to him in person. He seems like he cares genuinly about people, period. I think he believes welfare is a form of slavery, you make people dependent on you and theyre yours.I Joined his campaign after the morgan state debates. So called black men like obama said the WOD should increase. Sorry obama is one of the worst candidates for us.

  • Well said sir. Instead of rhetoric you use reason. I wish the half of the population that typically didn't vote would do the same. I hope that the 2/3 that seem to vote based on party and nothing else follow this example. Welfare is a form of socialism, which is a form of totalitarianism, which is a form of feudalism which equals de facto slavery whether you're white, black, brown etc.

  • Gosh, look at the kettle calling the pot black!

  • An obviously biased opinion. All of the points you brought up are meaningless. Let's talk about the issues, let's talk about the war, let's talk about our freedom and our constitution, the coming economic collapse and how we can prevent it, not nonsense, exaggeration, and calling people names, how childish and pathetic. Sorry to disappoint you, but we're not suffering, we're just happy we can see the truth.

  • He was out of politics at the time. He was running a medical practice. Has it ever occured to you that maybe his medical practice had higher authority than some stupid newsletter? The man is human for Christ's sake!! He is very honest about everything else. How the hell is this guy supposed to read the minds of 110,000 people who donated to him? Why give the money back for those people to do bad things when he is using for good things? Who are you supporting in this election?

  • Hey, not-so-observant person,

    His office didn't publish the letters. His name was used as a publishing tool because he is a celebrity in the economic and libertarian worlds.

    It's like Steve Forbes being held accountable for everything written in Forbes magazine.

    Get a grip.

  • Gee, they must have been looking pretty hard to try and dig up dirt on Ron Paul. 1992? What's the matter, couldnt find a single thing inconsistent he said in say, the last 15 YEARS??

    I can think of inconsistent statements made by each of the other presidential candidates, all within the past 6 months.

  • EXACTLY! I also cannot figure out why Fuckabee came 1st, when he lied about have a Theological degree when he does not & never did!!! Do voters want a bald-faced liar? Did they ignore that he LIED ABOUT HAVING A DEGREE!!! (I love how Wolf concedes that he didn't think Dr. Paul wrote it).

  • great comment. you are exactly right...