Ron Paul touted his newsletters in 1995

Help you out why? So once the silliness is refuting, you can go back to repeating the same old thing, the better to support Ron Paul's despotic opponents?

Where is this video anyway? I'm not going to bother finding it just to argue with you. The newsletters were around for, like, fifteen years and only a handful of articles that I know of had any objectionable content.

He says he doesn't know who they were. Why would he? Are there any records? Does anyone remember who wrote an anonymous article from twenty years ago? Maybe the person who wrote it is dead now.

Anyway, who cares? Exactly how do you think this would influence his presidency? Please. Even if he went around wearing a white sheet, he'd still be 100x better than Obama and Newt Romney, because he's the only one that doesn't support absolute presidential despotism. I'd even support Ralph Nader over them for that reason alone, and I'm a libertarian!

 

They asked him the same line of questions every time he appeared?

Something tells me that wasn't the case.

 

Endorsed or wrote doesn't matter, it's all over him and he's dug his heels in on it. This will probably end his chances if he ever had one. You don't just pretend it did not occur or you just didn't know when you bragged about it and profited off of it.

 

finally, we find something to agree on.

 

Anyone who put out that racist garbage in his name should never be President. Any one who let's things be published in his name for five years without making sure they know what they are should never be President.

End of story.

 

Anyone who sits in a Black Liberation Theology Church for 20 years is the 4th best President of all time.

End of story.

 

Ron Paul has disavowed these writings.

He does not believe these things.

He is not a racist.

End of story.

 

Of course you would... especially if you changed the name of Stormfront to "______your_name_______'s newsletter.org".

 

Then anyone who allowed things to be printed in his name with his signature attached making money off of it and not knowing what was being printed is too irresponsible to be President. Do you really think he is that stupid of a man and why did he brag about them?

 

Anyone who advocates absolute presidential dictatorship, slaughtering children overseas, locking millions in cages for victimless crimes, and impoverishing hundreds of millions through economic fascism should never be president.

Politically incorrect newsletter may be a deal breaker for you. Child butchery is a deal breaker for me.

 

I agree and too bad the Democrats and MSM put their collective blinders on and even attacked those who did believe it should matter.

 

The left is going to babble about this for awhile but unfortunately for that left nobody cares anymore. Good luck warning the masses of 20 year old letters NOT written by Dr. Paul while you have Holder in the Justice Department and Obama in the White House. Make it a race issue and you lose by a landslide.

 

Why can't you call it for what it was, a racist newsletter.

And why aren't both deal breakers with you? One doesn't preclude the other being a deal breaker too.

 

This ain't gonna stick, so give it a rest.

Paul is the only candidate who has stated that he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders of whatever race.

If that's racist I'll kiss your ass!

 

Correction: only people who hate Ron Paul more than they hate children being blown up with drones care about the newsletters.

 

I'd be really curious for a little follow up such as these things that were said are wrong, I regret that they ever appeared under a letter head with my name on it, I want it to be understood that the thoughts in those papers are repugnant and have no place in political discourse in America.

"I disavow those writings" doesn't cut it for me. Maybe a little question and answer on his exact current opinion of racial issues would be nice too. Though it will be to defend the utopian libertarian concept that businesses be allowed to segregate lunch counters again without being perceived as a racist.

 

I'm as right as they come around here. Now listen to a rational voice. The man should never be President whether he knew the content, which he did, or allowed it to be printed in his name without knowing, which you seem to think makes it OK. He bragged about the content, you can't make that just go away.

Neither scenario shows he has any business being President.

 

here ya go:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pTgp3vF-eM"]Ron Paul "I Am The ANTI Racist!" Wolf Blitzer Interview 2008 (Told You This Was Coming ~ - YouTube[/ame]

 

So who wrote all that racist stuff? You now admit he was familiar with the newsletters, he just never happened to read the bad stuff. Someone he managed to only read the good parts, even thought it was littered with trash. But fine. So who wrote those newsletters? Paul obviously knows, as he's familiar with the contents. Why won't he say who wrote them?

 

Wow is that you?... I think someone may have hacked your account... cause I agree.

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

Even if you adopt the excuse he made millions of a newsletter that borne his name that he published that he profited on but he didn't know what was being printed, you have to disqualify him. He is too irresponsible and quite frankly too stupid to be President if that is the case.

The fact is he did now what was in those letters and anyone who would print those things should never be President.

 

I call em as I see em.

 

Meh. The article with most of the inflammatory quotes (which I did actually read) was only racist on the level of your great-uncle at Thanksgiving. But I wouldn't care if the newsletter had nothing but the words "I, Ron Paul, don't like n***ers" printed in it over and over. It's still preferable to child butchery.

Actually, it does, since it's a choice between child butchery or newsletters. Take your pick: newsletter, child butchery.

 

Actually, he says he didn't profit off it, but keep repeating whatever you heard.

 

Romney shouldn't be president because he was for the bailouts.

Same goes for Perry and Cain.

Bachmann and Santorum shouldn't be president because they are against gays and Muslims.

Newt shouldn't be president because of the 1.6 million from Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae.

Obama shouldn't be president because of Obamacare and his bombing of Libya.

Now that every presidential candidate is disqualified, who should we nominate?