Peek a Boo
-
Posts
5,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Peek a Boo
-
-
I see, but In my post I was referring to that specific link, not all available material on RP and his newsletters.
....and that seems to be the biggest problem here-- most people have NOT researched all available material-- they are taking the snippets of smears and running with that. That *is* lazy researching.
When i first found out about this, I actually trekked down and read decades worth of RP newsletters in a library's archives. Unfortunately i didn't have the foresight to copy all of them in [like I would now, lol], but i took a lot of notes [issue by issue] that are stuck on the old hard drive....
Originally Posted by Jennifer3141
If Paul didn't write this, I still don't think he should be elected to public office. ...
There's a point where you just cannot run for office because you're too stupid.
Apparently not.
listening voluntarily to Jeremiah Wright's brand of racism and hatred and bigotry for 20 years is monumentally unwise also....but it seems to have worked.
-
He is claiming that he did nothing wrong. What I expect him to do is say, "I was wrong to publish these racist comments in my newsletter. I apologize for my oversight. I should have taken responsibility for what was being written in it."
@2:25 he did almost exactly that. without the repetitive apology.
"I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
He has said it was WRONG.
-
To spell it out a little further... the link that Peek provided actually corroborates Bill's statement of decades being involved and does not back up Peek's claim that Ron Paul took responsibility for the racist writings.
no-- that the newsletter was *around* for decades doesn't prove there were racist comments made 'over decades.'
as tnt already shared:
Ironically, The New Republic article itself makes Paul´s argument believable. TNR claims the newsletters published offensive material "over the course of decades" -- even though this is false; the genuinely offensive material TNR presents dates only from very late 1989 to 1993.Then TNR says that Paul´s claim -- that he did not write the material and is guilty only of poor oversight -- "might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically -- or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time." Well… that is exactly the point. It was a fairly short time period (judging from what TNR shows us), and the articles were short pieces in only some of those issues, certainly not the focus of the publication. This backs up what Paul is claiming. By TNR´s own argument, that boosts Paul´s believability.
RP has already stated repeatedly that racist comments are WRONG and that he did not --and has never been known to -- issue any racist remarks.
-
re·pu·di·ate Verb
1. Refuse to accept or be associated with.
How exactly is that taking responsibility for it? Asks me, someone who has never voted and stays out of politics completely, so has no dogs in this fight... but is simply supporting the truth in this little discussion.
How else do you want him to address it/ take responsibility for it?
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
: the quality or state of being responsible: as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : reliability, trustworthiness
2
: something for which one is responsible : burden <has neglected his responsibilities>
There are numerous statements by him that explain how and why these statements were not his and the statements are WRONG. That *is* the responsible thing to do.
-
Wow! You really twist the truth. Anyone can watch the report and I hope they do.
Bill
what did I twist?
spell it out -- don't just throw an empty accusation out there. prove it.
-
I hear Paul saying that but as I wrote in the other thread, I don't believe his explanation. These newsletters span YEARS.
If Paul didn't write this, I still don't think he should be elected to public office. If my DH came home and I found out his name was all over something like this, I'd beat the living crap out of him with it. It's stupid.
Even if Paul does think like this, it's idiotic to think he could then be elected to the highest public office.
I feel the same way about John Edwards. There's a point where you just cannot run for office because you're too stupid.
I can believe it because i researched the company and his actions at the time, and [as I mentioned earlier and he alluded to] he has even MORE decades of NEVER being known for ANYTHING like that. There is not ONE person that can personally corroborate him ever holding those views.
Not One.
John Edwards?? NOTHING that RP has [actually] done can even compare to John Edwards cheating on his dying wife.
------
eta: wiki on the company. more available at the footnotes and elsewhere.
Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. was founded in 1984 by Paul, who served as President. Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr. served as Vice President, Ron Paul's wife Carol served as Secretary and Lori Pyeatt as Treasurer. The corporation was dissolved in 2001.[38][39][40][41] In 1985 Ron Paul & Associates began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[42] and The Ron Paul Survival Report;[9][43] it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report in 1987.[44] Many articles lacked a byline, yet often invoked Paul's name or persona.
After his unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988, Paul returned to private medical practice and continued to allow the newsletters to be published bearing his name. For 1992, RP&A earned $940,000 and employed Paul's family as well as Lew Rockwell (its vice-president[45] and occasional editor)[46] and seven other workers. Murray Rothbard and other libertarians believed Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters for Paul;[45] Rockwell later acknowledged involvement in writing subscription letters, but attributed the newsletters to "seven or eight freelancers".[47]
-
-
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/03/18/ron-pauls-racist-republican-newsletter/
The CNN video is 10 minutes long but it does excerpt those passages and there is some political analysis about it.
and it stipulates very clearly that *Ron Paul did not write that.*
and shows ANOTHER example of him taking public responsibility for it. ;)
-
What if it was 8 years of publishing bigotry and racism and decades of publishing conspiracy theories and support for armed right wing militias? How does that help his case????
These were comments printed in his newsletter, under his name (not someone else's name) in the first person as Dr Paul's own writings.
Bill
Because supporting the second amendment is a far cry from supporting racism and bigotry.
Having a different theory about how something happened may be a 'conspiracy theory' but it is nowhere near *racist* and *bigoted.*
one can research how the company was run to see that several ghostwriters were indeed used 'under his name.' He's already addressed that repeatedly. And you continue to ignore that, repeatedly.
-
Compare to Ron Paul who wrote:
Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.
Bill
and where did *Ron Paul* write this?
-
You know it's funny, because this could have been taken the other way too (not what you apparently meant), that Ken Ham was trying to do this for his audience.
I know. ;)
BUT-- in *this* case, Wile didn't go as far as Ham did in *denouncing* a person's faith.
I absolutely believe Ham should and could discuss doctrinal issues that he sees as incompatible with HIS interpretation of scripture, but once you start judging another's heart, you've crossed a scriptural line.
I mean, if Wile had issued a rebuttal that basically did what Ham did, I don't think we'd be seeing the same reaction to his response. But Wile instead pointed out an error and expressed a plea for restoration.
Now THAT's where the difference is as far as i'm concerned. and I don't agree with either of them, doctrinally speaking. ;)
-
In this link, I don't see him taking responsibility for the comments at all, but I did find this: :001_huh:
Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN
"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.
Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself
"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."
-
I believe that this explains a lot. Residual effects can last for a day or two after.
....says someone quoting Malcolm X....who preached that white people were a race of devils.....
so no, i don't think racism dies very easily. nor can it be attributed to a moon.
eta: yes, I know MX recanted. my point was about treating the accusation of racism and bigotry lightly.
-
There is no "correction." The racist comments in Dr Paul's newsletter spanned decades. And what if they only spanned a few years, or a few weeks? It would not change the nature of the racism, or the fact he has not taken responsibility for the words published in his name.
Bill
wrong there too:
anyone can google to find Even More remarks he makes addressing those comments.
-
:lol:
Whatever you want to believe.
Bill
unlike some, I want to believe what can actually be supported.
I don't find people being racist and bigoted a laughing matter, which is why i studied the accusations against RP in depth years ago. I had a pretty detailed file on my old hard drive....now I'm wishing i had it handy.
-
There is no "correction." The racist comments in Dr Paul's newsletter spanned decades. And what if they only spanned a few years, or a few weeks? It would not change the nature of the racism, or the fact he has not taken responsibility for the words published in his name.
no-- it's already been researched that the comments in question did NOT span decades - in fact, about 8 years. At this point, you'll have to show which issue contained racist comments. He certainly DOES have decades worth of information that many would consider conspiratorial or backing right wing militia groups, but those are a Very Large Difference from the *bigoted and racist* comments that were found during very specific issues under the writing of a different person.
-
If you are speaking of Robert Byrd (as I'm sure you are) I can assure you I did not have a high opinion of the man.
He at least apologized for being a member of the KKK in his youth and took responsibility for his racist past. Notably unlike Dr Paul. Does this "excuse" his past? Not really.
Bill
That's because Robert Byrd apologized for *his personal actions and beliefs*. Unlike Byrd, Ron Paul never held those beliefs, so he had nothing to apologize for except lack of oversight [which is he DID apologize for].
One can call Byrd a bigoted racist...because he *was* a bigoted racist.
One can't call RP a bigoted racist...because he *wasn't* a bigoted racist.
-
If he (and you) want people to believe that articles written in the first person in Ron Paul's own personal newsletter over decades had nothing to do with him, then I don't know what to say. It strains credulity way beyond the breaking point.
Bill
and we'll repeat --again, since you've already been corrected once-- that one can't find 'decades' of bigoted/racist comments. It's pretty easy to track down the source and dates of the offensive material.
It strains credulity to the breaking point to continue repeating erroneous info. ;)
-
If he (and you) want people to believe that articles written in the first person in Ron Paul's own personal newsletter over decades had nothing to do with him, then I don't know what to say. It strains credulity way beyond the breaking point.
Bill
we didn't say that his newsletter 'had nothing to do w/ him': what we SAID was that articles published falsely under his name that *don't reflect his personal beliefs* can't credibly be used as support for a smear campaign that he *is racist*.
However, one CAN point to Robert Byrd's repeated personal statements against blacks, his lobbying against the civil rights movement, and his "apologies" that at first only recognized the bad politics of being in the KKK....
then there's always that OTHER racist bigotry that we heard from the pulpit of Obama's Jeremiah Wright. oh, wait...i keep forgetting that "racist" and 'bigot' are only s'posed to be used one way....
-
There are absolutely regulations on college tuition credits, charitable expenses, and medical expenses. If you want to claim any of those, you must spend the money in a way that the government approves of and/or at an institution that the goverment approves. Yes, you still have choices (this church or that one, for exmaple,) but that doesn't mean there aren't stipulations at all.
I'm not arguing whether that equals "control" of homeschooling or not, because this bill is not even serious, so it's a moot point. I just wanted to point out that there are regulations for those things you listed.
yes, but even those regulations are pretty vague and leave wide open a bunch of legitimate uses.
I do support something like this as a tax credit for the list of reasons given earlier: that leaves it a voluntary option.
-
Unfortunately the entirety of The New Republic article is available to subscribers only, but the preview includes:
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
Decades worth of the Ron Paul newsletter.
Bill
*yawn*
Ron Paul has repeatedly issued statements correcting the inaccuracies posted in his name, while other members of Congress who were actually PERSONAL MEMBERS of the KKK were allowed to get by w/ an apology? yeah.... tsk. tsk.
when I was researching RP I found it very cool that this 'scandal' [that wasn't even HIM] was about all people could drag out on him....his credibility and reputation are leaps and bounds beyond what any other politician can even hope to accomplish. He has lived his principles in his personal and public life --he has a record to back him up that anyone who does more than a smear-campaign for research can see in a heartbeat.
I do encourage people to track down and read the 'decades' of bigoted/racist comments that "Ron Paul" allegedly made.
-
To what "gross problems" do you refer?
SWB
In this case, the one that Wile was speaking up against in his original blog post. Because as you pointed out, most of us know it wasn't about young/old earth issues but a deeper theological issue that cuts to the core of the basic unity of the Christian faith.
In other areas, it could be various infringements of rights that are typically seen as 'normal' via the boil-the-frog-slowly syndrome. Or things like the Emperor's Clothes. ;)
-
I agree w/ Heidi. Chances are he was only CAUGHT once...no telling what has happened before and after. Most molestations go unreported.
I'd scan the article and post it online.
You also need to confront him and get his side of the story. I'd record that conversation and make sure you're not the only one.
-
Maybe we can all choose the higher ground and let this rest. Really, its not new information in the big scheme of things.
unfortunately, 'the higher ground' doesn't always consist of ignoring a Very Serious Issue. There's a neat book called The Peacemaker that describes that kind of thing as PeaceFaking, not PeaceMAKING.
all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
historically, we've always needed people to be the town crier and point out the gross problems that we've let exist as 'normal'.....stuff that keeps creeping back onto the radar or stuff that new Christians *aren't* aware of.
$5000 in tax cuts for homeschool parents
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
sincere Q: what does "knowing doctors well" have to do with how one does or does not edit/publish a company's newsletter? Or were you referring to not believing that he did not made racist remarks? surely you aren't saying that all docs are racists, are you? or that all docs are liars? That seems a bit stereotypical...
I can agree with him being stupid for not paying closer attention. I'd say there are worse things that our Presidents have been stupider [and bona fide guilty of] about tho. ;)