Itinerant Air-Cooled

BellePlaine wrote:

ruckman101 wrote: Has he reformed? Changed his ways?

neal

No because he has never had those feelings/sediments.

He just promoted those feelings/sentiments in his newsletters?

Racism should be called out. Sexual abuse of children should be called out. "Ain't no big thing" is a hair away from "silence is consent".

It's an added layer of insight that greys the high contrast perception.


neal

Fair enough although I'm not exactly clear how Wright is not the same as the newsletters. Anyway, you'd think, though, that someone could come up more damning evidence like a speech in a YouTube video of Paul's racist remarks if he held those feelings. For now, I'll take it as an attempt to knock Paul down but I hope for their sake that they could do better. I need more evidence.

It's a media feeding frenzy, for sure. It doesn't reflect well for the media, either, it certainly isn't pretty. Storming off an interview doesn't help.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:

BellePlaine wrote:

ruckman101 wrote: Has he reformed? Changed his ways?

neal

No because he has never had those feelings/sediments.

He just promoted those feelings/sentiments in his newsletters?

Racism should be called out. Sexual abuse of children should be called out. "Ain't no big thing" is a hair away from "silence is consent".

It's an added layer of insight that greys the high contrast perception.


neal

I imagine that in 1991, Paul's newsletters would have been somewhat similar to today's internet forums. Messages get gathered and sent out. Even though the newsletter had Paul's name on it, that does not mean that he wrote or endorsed those messages that were so clearly misguided to Paul's philosophy of individual freedoms. If the IAC was a monthly publication, should Colin and Sluggo with their day jobs be held accountable as endorsing every post made by our diverse membership? Does Colin not make money on this board and support his business? I just mean to inject a little perspective that it is plausible that terrible messages were sent out in some newsletters under Paul's name without Paul's blessing or agreement. We should not discount a person for that without harder evidence.

It's a media feeding frenzy, for sure. It doesn't reflect well for the media, either, it certainly isn't pretty. Storming off an interview doesn't help.

It will soon pass because it's probably all that they've got. You might leave a converstation too if you were unfairly being called a racist and the interviewer not accepting your straight anwser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LywD6gXB ... re=related

This is the interview that Neal and I are discussing.

And here's the solicitation letter he didn't write, disavows, and signed his name to.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/1 ... ation2.pdf


neal

denjohn wrote:It seems this thread is devolving from the original topic to a "Big Government" pissing contest between two valuable contributors.
Sad to see their energy so wasted.
I propose a reset:

Indeed, study after study has found that people with the basics for life, a higher purpose that requires sacrifice and a tight-knit community are far and away happier than isolated, atomized, insecure consumers, regardless of their wealth and consumption.

This potential to re-humanize our economy is why I am hopeful.

More at the link above.

I am moving this to the Big Government thread ....

ruckman101 wrote:And here's the solicitation letter he didn't write, disavows, and signed his name to.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/1 ... ation2.pdf


neal

Thanks for sharing.
Just like I figured.
I thought this was a racist letter? What did they say the problem is with this letter anyway?
I read or skimmed most of it and I don't see anything like the media is claiming it is.
I guess I first need to find out what the media is saying about it.
I thought they said it was a racist letter. About the only thing racist I saw would be
if saying the government is up to no good that is being racist against the gov.

steve74baywin wrote:

ruckman101 wrote:And here's the solicitation letter he didn't write, disavows, and signed his name to.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/1 ... ation2.pdf


neal

Thanks for sharing.
Just like I figured.
I thought this was a racist letter? What did they say the problem is with this letter anyway?
I read or skimmed most of it and I don't see anything like the media is claiming it is.
I guess I first need to find out what the media is saying about it.
I thought they said it was a racist letter. About the only thing racist I saw would be
if saying the government is up to no good that is being racist against the gov.

So you're all prepared for the "coming race war"?

At the least, this and other newsletter content that has come to attention reveals a willingness to pander to the fears of extremists in an effort to raise money, and now he's doing his best to dance around the issue while maintaining his support from conspiracists.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:[

So you're all prepared for the "coming race war"?


neal

You mean like the one mentioned in the middle east thread?
Or the one we did in Iraq?

The "coming race war" Paul cites in his letter soliciting subscriptions to his newsletters.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:The "coming race war" Paul cites in his letter soliciting subscriptions to his newsletters.


neal

This is exactly what I talk about often.
It seems in these letters that they use to say he is racist the only thing that can
be found in them is RP saying those messing with our money system might start a race war.
1) That does not make him racist, saying someone else he dislikes might start a war based on race
doesn't make him racist.????????????????????
2) This was before 2001, and you could say he was correct except they started a war on terror or
a religion, but not a race war, and certainly not call him racist for predicting it.

This is just so typical of the media and the deception the media plays.
They keep talking about if he wrote them, or if he didn't it was in his name, and
he should take the blame, or should he not,etc etc
But if you read the letters, they aren't racist, but no one is questioning that.

steve74baywin wrote:

ruckman101 wrote:The "coming race war" Paul cites in his letter soliciting subscriptions to his newsletters.


neal

This is exactly what I talk about often.
It seems in these letters that they use to say he is racist the only thing that can
be found in them is RP saying those messing with our money system might start a race war.
1) That does not make him racist, saying someone else he dislikes might start a war based on race
doesn't make him racist.????????????????????
2) This was before 2001, and you could say he was correct except they started a war on terror or
a religion, but not a race war, and certainly not call him racist for predicting it.

This is just so typical of the media and the deception the media plays.
They keep talking about if he wrote them, or if he didn't it was in his name, and
he should take the blame, or should he not,etc etc
But if you read the letters, they aren't racist, but no one is questioning that.

Cough, cough. You detect no racism in a wink and a nod to a statement like, and I paraphrase here, "The LA riots ended because all the black folks got their welfare checks." ??!

Do you see it as history in context? Or only a media attack by, pick one, liberals, the republican status quo, Rothchilds, or however you spell that family name you cite, banking criminals, or or or......

My better half keeps calling Ron Paul Ross Perot. Curious Freudism.

I admit, I like a political breath of fresh air. McCain struck a chord for me his first presidential run. Whew, glad I resisted after witnessing the second one. I voted Nader and am blamed for dividing the vote and getting the shrub elected. I still think Kucinich is the bee's knees. I wanted Ron Paul to be it, but there was just something there that rankled wrong, and the newsletters sank him for me.

It was the kick to the head that jogged my memory.

Support me, play up the appeal to that paranoid base, stoke the fear, blow that dog whistle, but disavow resonating opinion. I don't buy it. It's the same game plan the republicans are working, but without the finesse. Well, finesse only by comparison. Republicans are heavy handed too, but they have Ron to point to, "We're not that bad, look at him!"

Racists are always the last to realize that they are racists. "I'm not (racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-semitic) because one of my best friends is (ethnic, gay, a woman, jewish)."

And isolationism as a foreign policy? Certainly hasn't ever been a positive based on efforts at such in the past. You know, historically. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:
Cough, cough. You detect no racism in a wink and a nod to a statement like, and I paraphrase here, "The LA riots ended because all the black folks got their welfare checks." ??!

I did not see that anywhere. Is that in the letter you posted? I know you said you paraphrase, but can you show me the actually statement you are paraphrasing?

ruckman101 wrote: My better half keeps calling Ron Paul Ross Perot. Curious Freudism.

Interesting, I've seen that myself.

ruckman101 wrote: I admit, I like a political breath of fresh air. McCain struck a chord for me his first presidential run. Whew, glad I resisted after witnessing the second one. I voted Nader and am blamed for dividing the vote and getting the shrub elected. I still think Kucinich is the bee's knees. I wanted Ron Paul to be it, but there was just something there that rankled wrong, and the newsletters sank him for me.

That is too bad, at very worst he may have allowed or not been on top of letters that may have something in them that can be called Racist from a long time ago. Might have I said, we are still trying to find what in the letters that he didn't write are being called Racist. Sorry Neal, but this doesn't come close to the other politicians who have wrong policies for years, vote the opposite of what they say often, get caught in million dollar scandals, get backed by the biggest bankers, etc, etc. I would be tempted to guess then that you must not have voted in a very long time.
And, if this is all we can find on him, IE, his great track record of voting what he preaches for his entire record, yet some letters does him in.. Honestly, I think you are
being very unfair and irrational if you let that turn you against him,,unless, you haven't been behind any of these other guys..
Who have you voted for in the last 12 years? I would be interested to see if you voted for someone with more dirt than Ron?

ruckman101 wrote: Support me, play up the appeal to that paranoid base, stoke the fear, blow that dog whistle, but disavow resonating opinion. I don't buy it. It's the same game plan the republicans are working, but without the finesse. Well, finesse only by comparison. Republicans are heavy handed too, but they have Ron to point to, "We're not that bad, look at him!"

This seems to overlook that his message is right in line with "Liberty" and "limited Gov" principles and he has had the same message and actually a voting track record to prove it for years.

ruckman101 wrote: And isolationism as a foreign policy? Certainly hasn't ever been a positive based on efforts at such in the past. You know, historically. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
neal

Ron Paul doesn't have an Isolationism Foreign policy. That is another BS thing by the media. Not wanting troops all over the globe in not isolationism. Not having military around the globe doesn't mean automatic isolationism. Ron Paul's foreign policy would actually promote the opposite of isolationism. Saying getting our troops out of the world is isolationism must assume something like this, The US can't get along any in the world, therefore if we are not to be isolationist we must wage war, like you can't have one without the other.
Not being the policemen of the world doesn't mean we are isolationist.
I spend plenty of time outside of my house all over town and with other people getting along, trading, doing things together, yet I haven't set up bases all over town and in their houses.....How is this possible?
Simply put, the media spread that crap that Ron Paul is an Isolationist.
He is not, unless we look to Newspeak for the meaning of words.

Those quotes came from his newsletter. He may not have written them but he did sign his name to them. Try to disavow them as he might he's going to have a tough time distancing himself. I see it like this. Someone makes an offensive statement in your kitchen. At that point those are their words not yours. You then alow a yard sign with the same words. Still their words but you've now attached yourself to them. Am I using a faulty logic?