Baculus Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 So, this guy can't keep track of a simple newsletter that goes out with his name on it, but he expects me to believe he's capable of running the country?Umm....no thanks. That is a red herring and completely irrelevant. This didn't happen last year - this was an article from a newsletter in 1992, written while he wasn't in the state. And Paul does not have a history of such articles in these newsletters. You are really, really, trying to grasp on this to "prove" something about Ron Paul, similar to TrumanB's attempts. Let me ask you something: Have you or TrumanB actually read the news letter in question, or seen copies? I would venture to guess...probably not. After all, what use would you guys have in substantial investigation, right? Now, I have seen excerpts of it, and I will say this: If Ron Paul did write it, then he is displaying opinions that he hasn't stated as a legislator. There is no evidence of over racism or anti-semitism (especially since many Libertarian thinkers have been jewish). It would be one thing if you guys pointed to this newsletter, then a trend of racism as evidence of Ron Pau's mentality, but I haven't seen it, nor have either of you demonstrated this (which would have been a good tactic on your part, but I don't think tactics is a strong point of either of you). I could be wrong about Ron Paul, and I have been doing a fair amount of reading which leaves open questions for my own thinking, but I would have to see substantive proof of such accusations. Instead, we have you guys who are running away with a newsletter, and that is it. Yea...very, very convincing. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 What is worse, Paul having someone write racist comments in his newsletter and then getting fired for it or Obama writing a book himself, in which he states not to trust people for being white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Sure it does. The ability to govern has little to do w/ ideas or even really intelligence or we'd elect PhD's on a regular basis. I disagree. I believe you are getting "electability" mixed up with "governing ability." Good governship has everything to do with intelligence, but sometimes does not lead to electability. Case in point, Michael Dukakis in the 1988 elections. Dukakis was very bright, but everyone just remembers him riding around in an M-1 Abrams. Stupid leaders typically do not fare well, unless they have a good staff. The ability to govern is related to alot of individual skills. At best, not understanding that his would become an issue and having a plan (that would actually work and make sense) in place for dealing with it, shows a lack of ability to anticipate, plan ahead, and understanding how the system works. Oh please. It is a newsletter that had some ghost written articles. Do you even understand how Presidencies are run, with cabinet positions, aids, and the like? Do you realize that this issue and running the Presidential office are SO completely different, it is laughable that you guys are even trying to compare the two? If you don't understand this, then how can it be explained to you? Why don't you explain this to the Bush staff, when they had to fall over themselves to deal with his previous alcohol problems and issues with his military attendence. And he was elected to two terms, even though there has been some sloppy work in covering up his background history. You guys are real, really reaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 What is worse, Paul having someone write racist comments in his newsletter and then getting fired for it or Obama writing a book himself, in which he states not to trust people for being white? did obama really say that in his book? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Why don't you explain this to the Bush staff, when they had to fall over themselves to deal with his previous alcohol problems and issues with his military attendence. And he was elected to two terms, even though there has been some sloppy work in covering up his background history.You guys are real, really reaching. The fact of the matter is that he Bush staff have done a great job in that they've won two elections. Paul is pulling in numbers somewhere around 10%. On these particular issues, they clearly had a plan (lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention), and as he's been elected twice, I don't really see how you can criticize their effectiveness (integrity would be a different question, but they ceratainly have been effective). That the military record of somebody like Kerry would become a bigger issue than Bush's was huge win for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The fact of the matter is that he Bush staff have done a great job in that they've won two elections. Paul is pulling in numbers somewhere around 10%.On these particular issues, they clearly had a plan (lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention), and as he's been elected twice, I don't really see how you can criticize their effectiveness (integrity would be a different question, but they ceratainly have been effective). That the military record of somebody like Kerry would become a bigger issue than Bush's was huge win for them. Paul is pulling numbers around 10% being censored and presenting topics to the American people of which they have no concept of. That is what makes it so difficult to get him more mainstream. It is not his message. It is the obvious slander of a man that has absolutely gorgeous intentions. Like he always says, if you were to line up the platforms without names in front of the American people, they would undoubtedly pick his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The fact of the matter is that he Bush staff have done a great job in that they've won two elections. Paul is pulling in numbers somewhere around 10%.On these particular issues, they clearly had a plan (lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention), and as he's been elected twice, I don't really see how you can criticize their effectiveness (integrity would be a different question, but they ceratainly have been effective). That the military record of somebody like Kerry would become a bigger issue than Bush's was huge win for them. Since the newsletter issue hasn't become headlines, I think the Paul campaign has done an OK job of dealing with it. I am sure they had some plan, though Paul himself probably could have done a better job of dealing with it. And, again, the ability for a campaign to "lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention" has little bearing on a person's ability to lead and govern. Well, unless the elected official official wants to run a administration that will "lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention," then that is another debate unto itself. Or if you believe a President should "lie, obfuscate, and redirect attention," then I don't know what to tell you, since I would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 did obama really say that in his book? lol no. He said he grew up hereing stories from others that advised him not to trust white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Like he always says, if you were to line up the platforms without names in front of the American people, they would undoubtedly pick his. That's just very wrong. Main reason - Because very few people new who Ron Paul was before. They learned about him the same time they learned about his platform and decided that it made no sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 That's just very wrong.Main reason - Because very few people new who Ron Paul was before. They learned about him the same time they learned about his platform and decided that it made no sense.... way too general of a statement. true for some, untrue for many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Excuse me, but I researched this and I do know facts about the situation. It has been implied that Paul DOES know who wrote it, but is not trying to smear that person's name, because he is semi-known, has ran or will run for office. Ron Paul on CNN: "...there were some people that were hired and I don't know any of their names and I do not, uhh, I absolutely do not know who wrote those things". So you just admitted that Ron Paul lied then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Ron Paul on CNN: "...there were some people that were hired and I don't know any of their names and I do not, uhh, I absolutely do not know who wrote those things".So you just admitted that Ron Paul lied then. link?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Let me ask you something: Have you or TrumanB actually read the news letter in question, or seen copies? I would venture to guess...probably not. After all, what use would you guys have in substantial investigation, right? Stop being deliberately obtuse about this. And stop using the singular "newsletter". There were multiple newsletters and you know it. CNN has copies of all the newsletters and has released multiple excerpts of the racist crap that was spewed. I've already posted some of these excerpts in this very thread and I will post them again if I have to. You can deny it all you want, the content is there. At worst, he wrote this material himself. At best, one of his own staff wrote this stuff and he did NOTHING to find out who wrote it (his OWN words, not mine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachingWinsChampionships Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Stop being deliberately obtuse about this. And stop using the singular "newsletter". There were multiple newsletters and you know it. CNN has copies of all the newsletters and has released multiple excerpts of the racist crap that was spewed. I've already posted some of these excerpts in this very thread and I will post them again if I have to.You can deny it all you want, the content is there. At worst, he wrote this material himself. At best, one of his own staff wrote this stuff and he did NOTHING to find out who wrote it (his OWN words, not mine). I know you've been enjoying pissing people off in these Ron Paul threads, changing the thread titles and all the other nonsense I've seen, but really everything you're doing only highlights the problems with politics today. I know that, for whatever reasons, you strongly dislike Ron Paul. But I don't believe for one second that you actually believe Ron Paul is racist...yet still you play these games and make these ridiculous attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.