Ron Paul, once again making sense.

Re: Ron Paul, once again making sense.


Huh?

what confuses you?
Have you heard his unconventional thoughts on the IRS and other issues.

I've heard his views on blacks and Jews and that was quite enough, thank you very much!

The comments referring to blacks was cleared up in another thread.
Statements were made by a writer on his behalf for his newsletter.
After the media caught hold of it, he explained that it was not he that said those words HOWEVER, since it was his name attached, he took full responsibility for the comments.
What more can you ask for?

I am not aware of any anti-semitic remarks.
If you know of any, I am eager to read them.
I am always open to the truth.

Furthermore, if these things were true and compared with the mountains
of dirt that could be pulled on every other major candidate,
racism wouldn't look so bad.(said in jest.)

I imagine you were referring to this...
(Pasted from another source)...

According to the report, "In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that 'by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.'" This, however, is certainly not racist, or even racially insensitive. Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy, and the Israeli government lobbies the US government for military assistance against its enemies. It should be obvious that this is the reason for Paul's remark, and not anti-Semitism of any type.

Furthermore, no one would be accused of being a racist for opposing providing military assistance to any country other than Israel, even if the population of that country was one that a lot of racism had been directed against.

In an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about those and other racist comments: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all."

Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The Ron Paul Political Report was an eight-page newsletter, not a 200-page magazine; whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents.

Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.) Regardless, the fact remains that Paul suffered these words to be published under his name in his newsletter as a representation of his views, and his efforts to distance himself from them are more than a little bit disingenuous.

I don't like him, and, I am afraid to say, jasonrest, I am beginning to not like you very much either, if you think it is OK to make "jests" about racism not being so bad.

I understand if I don't earn your favor.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I enjoy discussions even in disagreement.(especially yours)

When critics have to dig back close to twenty years for dirt
on a potential candidate as opposed to rewinding
a week ago to find the same on these other potentials, it speaks
volumes. (It's actually comforting)

I'll say it again and in this instance, not in jest...
If Ron had indeed said these
things with his own voice or pen and,
had sincerely apologized, acknowledging that he was wrong, he
would still be the lesser evil amongst all of these.

well, yeah, I mean, let folks make their own mistakes. Only thing the G can't screw up is what the G doesn't get involved in.

Nope, the government can screw up things it doesn't get involved in just as well if not better than it does the things it tries to control.

Take the contractors in Iraq for instance.

People are being brought up with the G's hand in their food bowls and can't tell when Big Brother is at the controls and when he isn't. This'll only get worse if we buy into socialized medicine.

I mean, what do we want to get out of this? Have you read the Wikipedia articles on other governments? They read like the ground rules for an amusement park. I think that's where we're headed - folks just want it set up, like buy the tokens, don't cut in like, if the weather plays ball everyone has fun.