Ron Paul Supporters - You Are Amazing!

[Rydher Profile]

To refresh your memory this is what I originally asked.

Ron Paul, a man that does not have a racist bone in his body, actively participated, promoted, made money from, and wrote in a newsletter that contains racist remarks. These remarks appeared in 25% of his newsletters over a 3 year period. Over that 3 year time period, not one staffer, supporter, friend, or family member brought it to his attention. Nor did Ron Paul ever see any of it.

Do you think that is reasonable? Yes or no. Keep in mind he is NOT racist and never has made any kind of remarks like that before.

Now that you know these 2 statements are facts.
1. Those remarks did appear in his newsletters from 90-93.
2. He said that he didn't know about them until 10 years later. “It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

I ask the question again. Yes or no please.

[Noentry Profile]

To refresh your memory this is what I originally asked.

Ron Paul, a man that does not have a racist bone in his body, actively participated, promoted, made money from, and wrote in a newsletter that contains racist remarks. These remarks appeared in 25% of his newsletters over a 3 year period. Over that 3 year time period, not one staffer, supporter, friend, or family member brought it to his attention. Nor did Ron Paul ever see any of it.

Do you think that is reasonable? Yes or no. Keep in mind he is NOT racist and never has made any kind of remarks like that before.

Now that you know these 2 statements are facts.
1. Those remarks did appear in his newsletters from 90-93.
2. He said that he didn't know about them until 10 years later. “It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

I ask the question again. Yes or no please.

Yes .in short
like I have previously stated the bar is low for politicians

[Rydher Profile]

To refresh your memory this is what I originally asked.

Ron Paul, a man that does not have a racist bone in his body, actively participated, promoted, made money from, and wrote in a newsletter that contains racist remarks. These remarks appeared in 25% of his newsletters over a 3 year period. Over that 3 year time period, not one staffer, supporter, friend, or family member brought it to his attention. Nor did Ron Paul ever see any of it.

Do you think that is reasonable? Yes or no. Keep in mind he is NOT racist and never has made any kind of remarks like that before.

Now that you know these 2 statements are facts.
1. Those remarks did appear in his newsletters from 90-93.
2. He said that he didn't know about them until 10 years later. “It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

I ask the question again. Yes or no please.

Yes .in short

Finally. Since Jet isn't on, let me ask you your take on this.

http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company; Record Number: DAL1568670

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `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."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report

[Noentry Profile]

quote="rydher"]

To refresh your memory this is what I originally asked.

Ron Paul, a man that does not have a racist bone in his body, actively participated, promoted, made money from, and wrote in a newsletter that contains racist remarks. These remarks appeared in 25% of his newsletters over a 3 year period. Over that 3 year time period, not one staffer, supporter, friend, or family member brought it to his attention. Nor did Ron Paul ever see any of it.

Do you think that is reasonable? Yes or no. Keep in mind he is NOT racist and never has made any kind of remarks like that before.

Now that you know these 2 statements are facts.
1. Those remarks did appear in his newsletters from 90-93.
2. He said that he didn't know about them until 10 years later. “It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

I ask the question again. Yes or no please.

Yes .in short

Finally. Since Jet isn't on, let me ask you your take on this.

http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company; Record Number: DAL1568670

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `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."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report

[/quote]

like I said the bar is low.
But in comparison to most politicians his is a few inches higher.

[Rydher Profile]

Fair enough. But hopefully now, you can see why I call him a liar.

Though I do have to say. I think you're a liar too. I don't believe for one second that you think that's a reasonable scenario. I think you said yes, just to be stubborn and your statement and posts following that show it.

[Noentry Profile]

Fair enough. But hopefully now, you can see why I call him a liar.

Though I do have to say. I think you're a liar too. I don't believe for one second that you think that's a reasonable scenario. I think you said yes, just to be stubborn and your statement and posts following that show it.

no sir my opinion is not a lie.
In comparison to how low I believe politicians can go.
Is why I feel it is a reasonable statement in the political arena.
If you expect me to condemn a man for a mistake he made 25 years ago(if he did) then all are condemned and no man would have the right to be president.Cast the first stone
Seeing as no man like that exist ,then this is all

There is a witch hunt out for him. As is to be expected for possible presidential candidates.
But there is not one ounce of proof to say he is lying regardless of what you or I think
One article from a news paper does not amount to proof that he is lying .

[Jet17 Profile]

I know you're smarter than that Jet. I wasn't comparing the two men. I was comparing how similar their supporters react and support each man.

Wasn't able to log in, because this site is a heaping pile of shit!

here was my response a couple hours ago:

no you were comparing people that support candidates...

it's all fair game, you support your candidate, so you qualify to the same scrutiny.

it's supporting a candidate dude, you don't half assed support anyone unless you are undecided or have no idea what politics mean. unless you firmly believe in what they say, it has nothing to do with fanaticism like you are implying, it has to do with similarity in ideals, much like you supporting santorum...

but since you have been flip flopping, I assume you don't know what you want, let alone how to achieve that, so you aren't like the others who support their candidates, because you don't have a back-bone when it comes to a stance on a situation, you will support anyone that seems favorable, instead of doing what is right. you believe in a band-aid approach, instead of a direct approach.

only digging into people who do have a stance, and trying to antagonize those people with faulty statements.

you post a quote from Dr. Paul that says this:

"I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written."

you see that PROBABLY there, that means he is uncertain of the time line, which is indication of recollection, not being a liar as you have been masquerading this whole time.

However, here is you taking that statement and doing this to it:

"I was aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

had he said that, he would have been a liar, if the timeline wasn't correct.

your whole campaign with this underlying fact that you are trying to prove is based on your misinterpretation and contextual understanding of the english language.

he said Probably, which means "could have, couldn't have."

but according to you, you take out the probably part and assume he thinks correctly and it is certain.

this is your issue, you lack the understanding of it, so therefore you feel others should suffer for what? 2 weeks now, because of your ineptitude?

would you like me to explain a business model to you again so you can understand how and why it is "normal" for a CEO or business owner to not hear of things until much later? it's called chain of command.

when is the last time you spoke with your owner of your beer distribution rydher? I will assume you deliver for a major corporation like Budweiser, so I will ask, when have you spoken to the owner about a work related grievance? did he reply to you yet?

why would a situation like that, be any different from a regular business? the man is not superman.

here maybe what I wrote before can help you understand:

when you are a doctor, and a statesman, and have a giant family, I imagine life gets rough. You hire people to represent you, work for you, and people to monitor those affiliations.

Now what your belief is rydher. You believe that business should run smooth, any faulty of operation lies solely on the person in charge of operations, when in fact how does an operation go wrong? Maybe when you are hiring someone else to do the work? hence the meaning of business? so when that person does something wrong, you can guarantee that individual loses his job, not the CEO or head of operations (that is guaranteed)...

Ron is a busy man, he had an operation, he was popular. people bought into his beliefs and were Voluntarily willing to pay for a piece of journalism. In fact it was those very readers that said "hey something is wrong here?"

as we all know, bureaucracy runs deep in business. it's a form of chain of command, and while at time completely annoying, it is an essential part of business to guarantee a good business function.

So what happened here is that the flow of information got through to the proper people that handled the situation while Ron Paul was off being a doctor and statesman.

Is it perplexing that he didn't hear about it? Yes, it is, I would love to know if I had an investment that was printing things that I did not agree with. that is a business model though, you don't tell an owner a problem that the foreman can handle. you don't tell a producer about an editing problem, you go to an editor...etc....

Is is strange that Dr. Paul thought he hired competent people to run a proper business, which ended up not being the case, as given in these letters? No, it is not. it happens all the time. A bank could hire a thief, and might never know it unless they got robbed, or sabotaged. It was the 80's man, they didn't piss test, run a criminal background check as easily, and do terrorist worksheets to find employment. You can't identify stupid all the time.

Is it fair to call him a racist based on speculation?

No, it is very speculative, I think his voting record that includes "ALL individuals" repeals that.

is it fair to call a man of 74 a liar, because he said a few years to 10 year? maybe, either way you look at it, the timeline of remembrance is not important, it's the issue being discussed that is being propped up by a false remembrance issue.

it's like referring to something in the constitution and saying you thought is was introduced in 1776 instead of 1789... shit happens, people forget, it doesn't make you a liar, it makes you forgetful.

But at the same time if you want to grasp at the only fallible thing that the man hasn't been firm on and call him a liar based on something that could be as simple as recollection, because it proves a grasping at branches on the way down point, or little importance in comparison to everything else. Then by all means be my guest.

[Rydher Profile]

I know you're smarter than that Jet. I wasn't comparing the two men. I was comparing how similar their supporters react and support each man.

no you were comparing people that support candidates...

Isn't that what I said?

I assume you don't know what you want, let alone how to achieve that, so you aren't like the others who support their candidates, because you don't have a back-bone when it comes to a stance on a situation, you will support anyone that seems favorable, instead of doing what is right.

I've been pretty clear on what I want and I have a very good stance on what I want. Which is why I comb through each candidate until I find one that closest comes to what I want. I find it very telling, though not surprising, that you criticize me for not picking someone and standing by them no matter what. Instead I stand behind principle and try to pick the person who I think best matches those principles.

Since when was/is Santorum favorable? It wasn't until this past week that he got any attention and even then he's third in the polls.

"I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written."

you see that PROBABLY there, that means he is uncertain of the time line, which is indication of recollection, not being a liar as you have been masquerading this whole time.

However, here is you taking that statement and doing this to it:

"I was aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

had he said that, he would have been a liar, if the timeline wasn't correct.

If you actually looked at this from a objective viewpoint. You would see that it is a lot more than just that one line. But since you pointed it out. He was on the record as being aware of it 3 years later, not 10. That's a big difference.

Meaningless by itself? Sure it is and I would give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But with everything else, not so much.

would you like me to explain a business model to you again so you can understand how and why it is "normal" for a CEO or business owner to not hear of things until much later? it's called chain of command.

And you don't think that at any point during this massive 'business' that Ron Paul ran. That not a single person pointed out these remarks to him? Even you don't' believe that.

when is the last time you spoke with your owner of your beer distribution rydher? I will assume you deliver for a major corporation like Budweiser, so I will ask, when have you spoken to the owner about a work related grievance? did he reply to you yet?

I don't sell beer. Moot point though, comparing the largest wine and spirits distributor with over 10k employees making over 3 billion dollars a year to Ron Pauls newsletter is silly.

In case your wondering. I personally spoke to the CEO on the 23rd. He's very hands on.

Ron is a busy man, he had an operation, he was popular. people bought into his beliefs and were Voluntarily willing to pay for a piece of journalism. In fact it was those very readers that said "hey something is wrong here?"

According to Ron Paul it was 10 years after they were printed. Yet, he clearly acknowledged them 3 years after the fact.

By itself, that's not an issue. I jumble time frames up myself and would imagine the older you get the more the years blend into each other.

The issue is I'm supposed to believe that during the 3 years this was going on. Not one person in this 'chain of command' said anything to him, not one supporter found those views problematic, not one friend had his back, and not one family member asked him about it.

it's like referring to something in the constitution and saying you thought is was introduced in 1776 instead of 1789... shit happens, people forget, it doesn't make you a liar, it makes you forgetful.

Wrong, recalling a historical fact is very different from recalling something that has happened in your life for an extended period of time. And something that you have been questioned on for over 15 years.

That's not even getting into that interview in 96 where he said that he wrote the articles but they were taken out of context and they need to be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

[Jet17 Profile]

no you were comparing people that support candidates...

Isn't that what I said?

yep, which implies you and your support to santorum, missed on that one.

so, therefore, your comment about Pauls supporters being the same as Obama's supporters applies to your support of santorum as well, since you are dedicating yourself to a candidate and will eventually vote for them.

I assume you don't know what you want, let alone how to achieve that, so you aren't like the others who support their candidates, because you don't have a back-bone when it comes to a stance on a situation, you will support anyone that seems favorable, instead of doing what is right.

I've been pretty clear on what I want and I have a very good stance on what I want. Which is why I comb through each candidate until I find one that closest comes to what I want. I find it very telling, though not surprising, that you criticize me for not picking someone and standing by them no matter what. Instead I stand behind principle and try to pick the person who I think best matches those principles.

Since when was/is Santorum favorable? It wasn't until this past week that he got any attention and even then he's third in the polls.

never, but you are supporting him aren't you, so therefroe between you flip flop of supporting Michelle Bachmann, and santorum, and Herman Cain (lol) I would say you don't know where you stand, based on your ideals candidates polling streak.

none the less, it's not about the candidate, its about the ideals, like Me voting for Paul is about my ideals, there is also Gary Johnson, but I don't agree with him as much as I do paul, so therefore I do not support him.

unlike you who supported 3 candidates at one time and has to choose based on "what they say" as you have detailed that "what people allegedly" say is the most important thing to you, regardless or what they do or have done. that is the point.

"I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written."

you see that PROBABLY there, that means he is uncertain of the time line, which is indication of recollection, not being a liar as you have been masquerading this whole time.

However, here is you taking that statement and doing this to it:

"I was aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

had he said that, he would have been a liar, if the timeline wasn't correct.

If you actually looked at this from a objective viewpoint. You would see that it is a lot more than just that one line. But since you pointed it out. He was on the record as being aware of it 3 years later, not 10. That's a big difference.

Meaningless by itself? Sure it is and I would give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But with everything else, not so much.

No, it stands correct as it is. it says PROBABLY, so in that circumstance it means exactly what it says, not because you say otherwise.

In regards to the "everything else".... What everything else? everything you have put forward has either been taken out of context, laid to rest, or based on words like "PROBABLY" that you assume means "IT WAS."

there is no "Everything Else" dude.

would you like me to explain a business model to you again so you can understand how and why it is "normal" for a CEO or business owner to not hear of things until much later? it's called chain of command.

And you don't think that at any point during this massive 'business' that Ron Paul ran. That not a single person pointed out these remarks to him? Even you don't' believe that.

Yes, if you remember he said they were pointed out to him some time later, remember? hence you using his statements and mis-quoting and context cutting him.

who is forgetting now?

better watch out, someone might call you a liar now.

when is the last time you spoke with your owner of your beer distribution rydher? I will assume you deliver for a major corporation like Budweiser, so I will ask, when have you spoken to the owner about a work related grievance? did he reply to you yet?

I don't sell beer. Moot point though, comparing the largest wine and spirits distributor with over 10k employees making over 3 billion dollars a year to Ron Pauls newsletter is silly.

Excuse me, you deliver it..

It's not silly at all, you have to figure his campaign has alot of people, maybe not as much as your beer distribution center.

but the structure of business is the very same thing.

if you are comparing the fact that no one told him for some time, and deny my question about when the last time you spoke to the CEO of your company was, and saying it's silly when it's the exact same thing as far as structure and chain of command of business goes. then it is no surprise you just distribute the beer.

that is what is moot!

try it, go and find the CEO of your company and inform him of something, and see how long it takes to get a response, and until you do, you have no obligation to comment on how "ridiculous" it may or may not be.

In case your wondering. I personally spoke to the CEO on the 23rd. He's very hands on.

Oh wow really, you Spoke to him about the problems you had with the business? or just said "hi?"

he is very hands on *sarcasm*? but he runs a 10k employee business well doesn't he....but I am sure he doesn't know anything about you and your minimal importance job, that is why he gives YOU a boss, and he is beyond that Boss....

you see.

do you see your contradiction, you imply that he isn't worthy of running a model business, but yet he has one, and employes you, but you work for this guy you are basically calling a scumbag, so therefore by your own logic in regards to Pauls business, you are just a scumbag like your boss correct?

If your boss was a racist, do you think it would be fair for people to call you a racist?

how about the other way around?

probably not, but here you are pressing that point, very contradictively I might add.

Ron is a busy man, he had an operation, he was popular. people bought into his beliefs and were Voluntarily willing to pay for a piece of journalism. In fact it was those very readers that said "hey something is wrong here?"

According to Ron Paul it was 10 years after they were printed. Yet, he clearly acknowledged them 3 years after the fact.

By itself, that's not an issue. I jumble time frames up myself and would imagine the older you get the more the years blend into each other.

The issue is I'm supposed to believe that during the 3 years this was going on. Not one person in this 'chain of command' said anything to him, not one supporter found those views problematic, not one friend had his back, and not one family member asked him about it.

5000 to 6000 people subscribed at that time.

America has 305,000,000 Million People.

do you see how important that look just with numbers?

also see above statement to quantify my response here.

Once again he was informed, SOME years later. which means he was informed. but the PROBABLY statement, wasn't good enough for you.

it's like referring to something in the constitution and saying you thought is was introduced in 1776 instead of 1789... shit happens, people forget, it doesn't make you a liar, it makes you forgetful.

Wrong, recalling a historical fact is very different from recalling something that has happened in your life for an extended period of time. And something that you have been questioned on for over 15 years.

No, not wrong, it's called recollection, while a historical event and something that happened in your life are different branches of recollection, they ARE THE SAME. it's called recollection.

Since he didn't write the letters, your point that it happened to him, is again void, as he didn't write them, so therefore, it didn't directly happen to him.

but since you are about sematics, we can just say that you are wrong, and remembering things is difficult sometimes for people, regardless of the circumstance, even with age creeping up on you.

I know people that get drunk and can't remember the night before, does that make them liars? according to you it does.

That's not even getting into that interview in 96 where he said that he wrote the articles but they were taken out of context and they need to be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

Indeed, he did, taking something out of context is wrong in any case.

I do believe that a general statement about some of the things said, is not a specific case by any means.

you are saying that he is admitting that they were written and that he admits they ar what he feels, and should be read and taken like they don't mean harm.

when in fact if you read the sentence you can see that it is a broad statement. BUT and I do mean BUT.... he wasn't talking about ALL of the statements, he was talking about the journal of the justice department labelling that criminals caught in the drug war should be treated like criminals and kept in prison.

so Paul decided to Mock the journal from 1992 and state by their definition: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

singling out a race to make an example of definition? sure, but implying racism when in fact he was sticking up for them by making a joke on the extremely retarded ways of incarcerating non-violent offenders for engaging in drugs, is hardly a racist way to stick up for a statistical margin, in that a majority of the people incarcerated are INDEED BLACK AND THERE UNFAIRLY, because of the Justice Departments unfair war on drugs and prison holding system.

Blacks are specifically targeted in the war on drugs, this is no secret, and Ron Paul is correct in his statement, because he knew exactly what the Justice Department meant when they wanted to keep "Offenders" in Prison, and to "target" them, just so the government can keep black men and women in prison to get revenue and release the confiscated drugs back into the black communities

The latter part of this paragraph is just my opinion, but clearly the quote is context cut, and taken completely out of line with the statement based on the Justice Departments Journal.


if he has said, those nappy headed negros, are all criminals and I feel the same as the JD, they should be in jail. then yes that would be extremely racist.


only he didn't say that.

[Jet17 Profile]

The quotation system on here is broken just like everything else. go figure.

it adds [quotes] where I deleted them, and doesn't reply properly.

just another one for the good ole structure here at DTV.