lol Op tried. You're no better than the scum that is the media. Its the best they have to exploit and they just look pathetic trying. You can do better, Moody.
Funny how perspectives change when it's "your guy" being attacked. Still there is fire behind the smoke and it is unreasonable just to poo-paw it away. Ron Paul’s Explanation For Racist Newsletter Springing Leaks | TPM2012 Video researcher Andrew Kaczynski unearthed a clip in 1995, before the newsletters had become an election issue in his district, in which Paul discussed the publication as one of his passion projects in his years out of Congress. He described it as a “political type of business, investment newsletter.†Ron Paul's base is by far the most devoted of any candidate and it's unlikely the story, which came up in the 2008 election as well, will have much impact on his core supporters. But with Paul surging in Iowa and increasingly broadening his reach within the party, it might put a ceiling on his momentum. In addition to the objectionable content of the newsletters, his odd explanation contrasts heavily with his hard-earned brand as an unconventional anti-politician who always tells the truth as he sees it and never waters down his views to pander to voters. It's hard to square this with a candidate who claims that he somehow never bothered to read a newsletter published under his own name that generated as much as $1 million in revenues in just one single year. Even accepting that premise, how many politicians looking to start a publication would just happen to pick a half dozen writers with blatant white supremacist and milita leanings to run the effort?
^^ no different than Obama claiming that he never heard rev wright say any of that stuff, even though he was a parishioner at that church for over 20 years.
You seem to have made a reputation of yourself by going against almost everyone in the politics section, on a few subjects that comes up. Who are you for in this election? What do you want to see done in this country?
if we believed all of these media smears, then i guess Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in the US and believes everything out of his crazy pastors mouth.. being that he was a member of that church for over 20 years.. or we could just look at the person, and realize the media is full of shit sometimes.
I love it when people go "HAR HAR U GUYS DONT LIKE IT WHEN PPL SAY THEY DONT LIKE UR GUY" *Gets proved wrong* *doesn't post in the same section again* *responds to a completely different question with an answer that leaves you with a "what?"
true, but, they also may be ignorant to his policies and his message as a candidate Ben Franklin once said "We are all born ignorant but one must work hard to remain stupid"
Article by Paul Joseph Watson for Infowars.com, 12/22/11 'While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates. The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head. Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%. Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it. Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries. The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008. Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich. Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content. The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King. The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey day”. If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution? Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion. Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack. Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities. The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty."
Ignorance is what they have when they make the retarded post/thread. When they're proven wrong, they can no longer claim ignorance. At that point they make the jump from ignorant to stupid.
Hank, I actually saw this video today, before I saw this post. I mean come the fuck on, the interview basically goes like this. "Mr. Paul did you write those racist letters?" "No, I didn't I told you that like 20 years ago, and even like 2 weeks ago." "Ah, ok but do you support the letters?" "No... I don't I didn't write them" "Oh ok, but did you write those letters?" "No, I already told you a hundred times that I didn't write those letters" "Okay okay, you didnt write them, but do you support them?" "Ron Paul: COME THE FUCK ON LADY! YOU STUPID OR JUST TROLLING?"
A racist Ron Paul would still be better than any Republican candidate we've had in the last few elections...
Has this been posted??? This pretty much proves Ron Paul is a bigoted racist. honestly, its a shame anyone supports this KKK lover: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY]Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! OMG! OMG! - YouTube[/ame]
How exactly do his supporters dismiss this? it's come out that back in 1992 he actually defended these statements and then in 2008 he said that he didn't know who wrote them, and then just a few days ago he says he's never read them either. Which one is it? if he can't produce a consistent reason for why bigoted statements and racist rhetoric is published under his name then how is he different than any other politician with compulsive lying tendencies? I see one of you posted an article from "Infowars.com" that wouldn't be a reputable source for information i'd have to say. Ron Paul's Shaggy Defense - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Politics - The Atlantic "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." "Paul defended this statement citing criminal justice stats and saying, "These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report." "In that same column, Paul noted that: If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be. "Challenged on this assertion Paul said in his defense: "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said. "That same year Paul asserted that, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
...and yet Rick Perry still has support. The guy who tried to outlaw a certain minority primary source of sexual recreation in the Lone Star state. Hmmm.