20 comments

• 

  Alex Merced

  1 year ago

  http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/89-r...
  
  that should clear it up
  reply
• 

  Adam Posey

  1 year ago

  Those "Shameful" letters were written and published for the EXACT same reason that a well known reporter for the Washington Post was able to write a completely unfounded article about the RIAA.  Which caused the post to have to issue a retraction. 
  That reason?  Writers can be stupid, and even politicians aren't all-seeing all-knowing individuals.  I imagine if I was in congress I would probably be busy doing stuff for the government rather than micromanaging a newsletter.  
  You know what's shameful?  Waiting for over 10 years to get upset with a guy over a newsletter that he FUNDED (did not write, FUNDED) and then writing an open letter pretending to be a supporter while downplaying everything that Dr. Paul is trying to do.  
  reply
• 

  Richard Brodie

  1 year ago

  I guess every revolution has its Judases and its Benedict Arnolds. This is obviously a hit piece by someone who admits to agreeing with almost nothing Ron Paul stands for, and can only string out a long list of disagreements. But his most fundamental disagreement is with Ron Paul's advocacy of the First Amendment, and specifically the part that talks about Congress (government) being neutral with regard to establishments of religion (belief systems.)
  
  One's position on race is a matter of personal belief, and it spans the spectrum from those at one extreme who deny the very existence of race (race truthers), to those moderates who believe in a multiculturalist elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation (velvet genocide), to those other moderates, the race nationalists (white pride, black Nation of Islam pride, Chicano pride, etc.) who advocate for identity preservation by the avoidance of racial mixing (separatists), all the way to those at the other extreme who believe that one race should rule over other races (supremacists.) Ron Paul realizes that it is not the place of a President (or a presidential aspirant) to use his position to come out, as a representative of the government, in a non-neutral way either for or against any individual or group at any point along this or any other belief system spectrum, unless they exhibit violence against other individuals or groups thereby disrespecting their rights.
  
  Rogel advocates that Ron Paul should ignore the Constitution and start yet another war in addition to the wars on drugs, on terror, on poverty, on illiteracy, etc., namely a war on racism.
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  Rogel,
  
  I am not going to chastise you for your disappointment. All I can say is what if Ron Paul really doesn't know who wrote this? What if his explanation that the newsletter was shifting parties at the time is absolutely true?
  
  What if Ron Paul was set up? Both the GOP and the Dems had been trying for years to unseat Ron Paul. To the extent that the GOP recruited democrats to run against him and funded them. To the extent that they even shifted districts to force him to appeal to entirely different people (yet he was still re-elected.) And Ron Paul expressed Presidential ambitions around the time this ONE newsletter was printed.
  
  What if Ron Paul was set up? Did you watch his explanation on CNN? Ron Paul sounded excited, agitated, and cornered. All he has is his character to back up what he says is true.
  
  If you were attracted to his campaign because of his honesty, why would you be willing to distrust him so easily? Nobody said this was going to be easy. Just look at what the media has been doing to him in an attempt to force him out. For months. If you were a supporter, Rogel, there is simply no way you couldn't have noticed this.
  
  Ron Paul has been fighting the establishment for decades. The GOP hated Reagan at a time that Ron Paul supported him.
  
  If somehow someone did this to you, what would you do? You would just tell the truth, right? Well, what if no one believed you?
  
  Look at the new spin on the smear that Ron Paul "admitted" it before. Listen to his responses. When he was confronted before, he didn't spew more racism. He didn't even DEFEND the statements. He talked about positive things instead. In fact, he doesn't even say "yes, I wrote that." What else could he do? What proof did he have that wouldn't just sound crazy?
  
  He accepted responsbility and told you that he honestly doesn't know who wrote these. I think if you open your mind back up you will see these appeared in ONE newsletter. Never before and never after.
  
  If you truly did volunteer in NH, you know doubt met the man. I have. And I could see absolutely nothing that would make me believe he would lie to me.
  
  Well, I'm sorry to say, but it boils down to whether you believe him or not. He HAS explained it to you. If it is not 'acceptable' then that just means you think he is lying. And if that's the case, well, you were looking at Ron Paul for all the wrong reasons.
  
  God bless
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  Richard,Your argument works both ways....In fact I can make a strong argument that limiting women right to choose and giving power to the states instead of the individual is not Libertarianism. I, unlike you didn't make this argument. I also didn't suggest that the newsletters were illegal, nor that the government should have do anything about them. However, and mostly because I am a libertarian, funding something and benefiting from it has significant meaning. And while I don't think that the government should be involved, I as a thinking individual should act.  By the way between Judas and Benedict Arnolds I guess I should be the first since I'm  Jewish :)  
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  Rogel,
  
  One final point. I read the one article (yes, only one article was clearly racist and inflammatory) and it read like a caricture. Like the author didn't even believed what he was writing but instead was using stereotyping.
  
  It's not just wishful thinking for me to believe this was a set up. I was just as disappointed and critical of Ron Paul's response. After the emotions settled, I looked at it more carefully, listened to his response on CNN again, and thought about what I would do in the same cirmunstance. I would simply tell the truth and hope that people believe me. What else could I do? Have you never had someone steal your identity in a forum and use you name to post crap because they didn't like you? Well, imagine a HUGE political machine doing it.
  
  In our volunteer groups, we run into people joining us with ill intentions all the time. Huckabee supporters, Romney supporters, etc... They come in. They come to a couple of rallies. We find them on other blogs leaking information and causing trouble in our own groups. It's just political reality that people are this evil.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  Scott,
  I have no doubt that Ron Paul is not a racist. But he have to make clear that the people that wrote these newsletters (and I read them as well, it is more than one) has nothing to do with the campaign. The newsletters was Ron Paul "Private Property" - he owned it and benefited from it - and therefore he is responsible to what was written in these newsletters. The fact is that Ron Paul admitted that he has moral responsibility but he didn't do the necessary step to disassociate  himself from those who wrote the actual newsletters.
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  Rogel, you are playing a game here and it is beginning to make you look suspicious. He said he DOESN'T KNOW who wrote this, actually his exact words were "honestly, I don't know who wrote this."
  
  How can he make it anymore clear?
  
  Again it comes down to whether or not you believe him. He has met all of your demands already. He has answered your questions. If you simply keep changing the bar, then well, I will have to agree with the others that you are simply trying to cause mischief. James and his crew are doing this all over the internet. Every time Ron Paul responds, they just move the goal posts to keep the story alive.
  
  Are you sincere in your intentions, Rogel?
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  In fact, I think I recall him saying "I wish I did." But I will have to go listen to the interview again.
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  "...and I read them as well, it is more than one"
  
  Nevermind... it is clear you are lying, unless you somehow read something no one else on the internet following this has read. It was ONE newsletter, and an implication by Jamie that he *found* 20 years of this stuff  with ZERO proof of THAT claim (and he keeps changing the time frame each time he tells the story.) There WERE writings that were not racist in anyway, but were instead non-PC. No more incendiary than stuff Bill Cosby has said.
  
  Why am I wasting my time on you? You just flat out lied in your response to me. Your intentions are clear. See you later, go support someone else that will keep the race wars going and people enslaved.
  reply
• 

  lastnymleft

  1 year ago

  Enough with the "we" crap. You don't speak for me. I consider Dr Paul as having fully - and satisfactorily - addressed this issue.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  You better do your homework Scott. You can start with reading this on Reason. 
  http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  Rogel, I DID read that. And no, there isn't more than one NEWSLETTER. More than one article, yes. But they were all in one newsletter. What I see at the link you just posted is 1992, 1992, 1992... so thank you for exposing to those reading these comments what a liar you are.
  
  The rest of the dates are articles where the same 1992 newsletter was brought up over and over again and Ron Paul's reponses to it at the time.
  
  And I did say there were other snippets taken from OTHER newsletters, but those are hardly racist. Look, I am done with you. It is clear you are simply a trouble maker. You are speaking in talking points we are hearing from the same people spreading this smear.
  
  You are lying and that's the first sign that you have a clear motive. I gave you a pass on not just dropping your support quietly like anyone else would do, but instead you just wanted to continue the smear.
  
  You know what, Rogel. It isn't going to turn off Ron Paul supporters simply because they believe him. He answered the questions. At this point the only attack you have left is that you don't believe him.
  
  And you have no credibility to call him a liar when you start being dishonest.
  reply
• 

  jaysalti

  1 year ago

  http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am...
  
  This is a blog by a former employee. I don't expect it to change minds, but it does offer a different perspective on the matter in some regards.  The more information we have the better off we all are. 
  
  Best Regards,
  
  J
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  J, Let me make it clear: I think that Ron Paul is a remarkable man, and a true statesman. I don't think that he is a racist, nor did I ever suggest that. All what I expect from him is to assure me as a supporter that those who wrote these newsletters are not part of the campaign. I would also like to hear why, for year, he did not disassociated and condemned those who betrayed his trust and used his name for these shameful newsletter. 
  reply
• 

  Scott M.

  1 year ago

  People,
  
  Seriously why try to engage this person? He isn't interested in learning anything new. No matter what you say, he is simply sticking to his talking points. No matter what you do to prove him wrong, he just repeats the question as if it isn't answered.
  
  Go ahead, click on the link he provided me to *prove* that this was more than one newsletter. See for yourself that this person is a liar and move on with your lives.
  
  Are you deranged, Rogel? It's a rhetorical question.
  
  Don't bother answering. I am not going to come back.
  
  Good luck with your smear campaign
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  Scott, Instead of being the troll that you are, why wouldn't you take a break and check my previous writing about Ron Paul and his campaign. After you done so you can come back and try to say something of substance. If the only thing you intend to do is ad-hominem attacks on me, at least use some real data.
  reply
• 

  zoolish

  1 year ago

  ... I find the remarks here as interesting as your own letter...
  
  all I wanted to add was:
  Surely you are joking Mr. Rogel. You entered a political campaign, and now you are surprised to find that it involves politics?  
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  I waited for your comment zoolish :) I was, and still is, waiting for a difference response from Ron Paul - a response of a statesman. <div>But lets examine this scandal on pure political level, without any moral judgment. The Campaign had to know that this scandal will break once Ron Paul start to get some real support. They had to be prepared for it, and better off bring the story by themselves. Would Ron Paul, or someone from his staff, come out with this story few months ago they could have control on the way it was interpreted.  So, even in pure political game, it doesn't look so good.</div>
  reply
• 

  Richard Brodie

  1 year ago

  Rogel,
  
  What alternative do you want for 2008? Your continuing to flog this dead horse reminds me of something Huckabee said to Ron Paul in one of the early debates. While trying to justify not leaving Iraq without "victory" even though we may have started the war for the wrong reasons, he said something to the effect that he would rather go down fighting than lose his honor by retreating. You seem to be content to have the "revolution" fail because Ron Paul might not pass one litmus test that you find so important.
  
  I can understand, since you're Jewish, why you would be highly sensitive about race issues. But I also find it somewhat disingenuous (and bear with me here because I'm just one of your stupid goyim :)  that you can be so condemnatory towards a White Nationalist like myself, who yearns to have a secure homeland for MY own race, when YOUR own race has been able to achieve such a goal for itself in the racially exclusive nation of Israel. Is it because this privilege of being able to live amongst one's own kind is reserved exclusively for God's chosen?
  
  It has been observed that a Ron Paul rally is the one place you can see skinheads working alongside blacks for a common purpose (after the campaign is over, there will be plenty of time for us to get back to the serious business of hating each other :)  Paul is the ultimate Uniter, because he holds forth the promise of a country where people of every conceivable kind of belief will enjoy the freedom of thought (to hold those beliefs), the freedom of speech (to publicly advocate those beliefs), and the freedom of association  (to congregate with like-minded folks, in a segregated kind of a way :)
  
  Paul would usher in an new era of harmony that comes with true diversity, by eliminating the resentments and hatreds that inevitably arise when different factions must, at a federal level, contend with each other in an all or nothing struggle to get a single agenda imposed (hopefully one's own) on the entire nation (e.g. segregation vs. integration). Instead of this ugly picture, a Paul Administration would allow for a variegated, multi-"colored", state by state smörgåsbord of preferences to develop that offers each individual the opportunity to find a congenial place were he can best realize his right to the pursuit of happiness.
  reply