The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Ron Paul- Best Republican Candidate in Politics, Maybe Worst In Morals

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#16New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 03:03:13
@jonnythan Said

His message has been slightly inconsistent in the past, but he has always maintained that he never wrote those things and didn't know about their content.

He has categorically denied having anything at all to do with them many times in recent weeks.

He didn't write those things. They are not his words. He doesn't need to hold a news conference to repeat something he's been saying over and over.


I think it is kinda like the Birther thing though. I'd make it a big announcement and enjoy the publicity that is hard coming.
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#17New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:26:18
@boobagins Said

He has. He's been battling this for more than 20 years. He's said so many times, but that doesn't stop reporters and agencies to bring it up during EVERY election he runs for. He has. He's publicly stated it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.



Like I said in my post he said the letters were horrible. Okay, cool. However, what I want to know is why he never really owned up to it. He takes no responsibility for something that bluntly has his name on the forefront. Let me use an example here. If I have a friend of mine write an essay for me to turn in as my own, and I don't read it but it has offense slurs, I have to take responsibility. My name is on the paper. Not my colleague's. If something is wrong with it, I take the fall.
Because this Mr.Paul is not a lazy high school student and a man in politics, he has to be an idiot not to read newsletters with his on name on it. Any politician knows (doesn't mean they always do it) to read over stuff with their name on it. However, I think Ron Paul is smart enough to read over material he claims ownership of. If he wasn't for some reason, there are certain things he should have already said. He's never said "I should have read the newsletters over before publication. If I had, I would have took that stuff out". He's never said that. That's one reason why he's so questionable in morals to me. He just says, paraphrasing of course, "Didn't write them, never really looked at them."
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#18New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:30:20
@simplydiffer Said

Like I said in my post he said the letters were horrible. Okay, cool. However, what I want to know is why he never really owned up to it. He takes no responsibility for something that bluntly has his name on the forefront. Let me use an example here. If I have a friend of mine write an essay for me to turn in as my own, and I don't read it but it has offense slurs, I have to take responsibility. My name is on the paper. Not my colleague's. If something is wrong with it, I take the fall.
Because this Mr.Paul is not a lazy high school student and a man in politics, he has to be an idiot not to read newsletters with his on name on it. Any politician knows (doesn't mean they always do it) to read over stuff with their name on it. However, I think Ron Paul is smart enough to read over material he claims ownership of. If he wasn't for some reason, there are certain things he should have already said. He's never said "I should have read the newsletters over before publication. If I had, I would have took that stuff out". He's never said that. That's one reason why he's so questionable in morals to me. He just says, paraphrasing of course, "Didn't write them, never really looked at them."


He didn't write them. He didn't publish them. He didn't hand them into anyone as his own.

Other people wrote them. These people didn't even put "Ron Paul" as a byline or anything - they simply appeared in newsletters with titles that included his name, like "The Ron Paul Report." They weren't his publications. He wasn't involved in the publications - he wasn't an editor who could have taken anything out. It was never his decision to publish the stuff.

It's a bunch of nonsense. You seem to be under the impression that these letters were published in his personal publication, and that's not the case.
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#19New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:33:15
@jonnythan Said

Maybe you should reevaluate Paul with the understanding that those quotes are not from him.



Okay, let's say I take the quotes out. Just reread my original post and cover up all the mentioning of the quotes. It's still pretty darn bad in the racial relations portion.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#20New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:35:55
The entire premise of your post is the words of the newsletters. There's nothing else there.
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#21New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:42:34
@jonnythan Said

He didn't write them. He didn't publish them. He didn't hand them into anyone as his own.

Other people wrote them. These people didn't even put "Ron Paul" as a byline or anything - they simply appeared in newsletters with titles that included his name, like "The Ron Paul Report." They weren't his publications. He wasn't involved in the publications - he wasn't an editor who could have taken anything out. It was never his decision to publish the stuff.

It's a bunch of nonsense. You seem to be under the impression that these letters were published in his personal publication, and that's not the case.



No, I don't. What I am saying is that they had his NAME on it. You take responsibility for things you allow to have your name on, whether you wrote them or not. What does they say about his management skills? What does that say about what he allows his name to be tied to? It's like signing a contract without reading it. Who the heck knows what it says! Person to person, would you allow you name to be on something that you weren't sure what it says? Regardless if you were not the editor or whatever? After it was brought to the light there were bad thing in there, would you sit there and never say "I should have been more careful and had an eye on what's in the newsletter. Even though I did not personally publish it, my name was on it and I should have at least had a vague clue of what was going on."
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#22New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:45:52
@jonnythan Said

The entire premise of your post is the words of the newsletters. There's nothing else there.



Yes, there is stuff that isn't about the newsletters. Voting against the Civil Rights Act, speaking at the John Birch Foundation, and others. I should have made a bigger deal about the voting against the Civil Rights Act . . . the story behind it is worse than the newsletters.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#23New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:49:30
@simplydiffer Said

No, I don't. What I am saying is that they had his NAME on it.


I could publish a "simplydiffer Report" newsletter tomorrow.

Does that make you responsible for its content?

Paul basically helped set up a libertarian think tank, which then went on to independently publish a couple of newsletters that used his name for basically publicity purposes. There is no indication that he ever had anything whatsoever to do with the content of these newsletters.

Yeah, he ultimately allowed his name to get associated with these, but that doesn't mean he had anything to do with the content or even knew about it at the time.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#24New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 04:51:08
@simplydiffer Said

Yes, there is stuff that isn't about the newsletters. Voting against the Civil Rights Act, speaking at the John Birch Foundation, and others. I should have made a bigger deal about the voting against the Civil Rights Act . . . the story behind it is worse than the newsletters.


How is the story behind the CRA worse than the newsletters?
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#25New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 05:09:53
@jonnythan Said

How is the story behind the CRA worse than the newsletters?



He was the only Congressman in 2004 to vote against it because of "property rights". According to his actual website, he said no one should be told who or what to allow onto their property. That's true of course. If a person stole from there, improper behavior was presented last time they visited, or whatever, it's fine that I won't allow them in. However, if I don't want to allow a person onto my property for the sole reason of them being black or whatever race, that is wrong. If I don't allow someone onto my property for the sole reason of them being a woman, that's wrong. Denying entrance into a property based on gender or race is what the bill is about, and he voted against it. Either he had no idea what the bill was about, or he's a racist.

If that's not disturbing enough, he said he would have voted against it in 1964. At that time, it was crucial to ending segregation. He said he would have supported the end of Jim Crow Laws, but isn't that property rights? If he's arguing no one should be told who to allow on their property, then Jim Crow Laws and other discriminatory practices would stay in place. After all, that's what the bill was dealing with.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Thu Mar 08, 2012 @ 06:53
84 6087
New posts   Politics
Wed Dec 28, 2011 @ 16:52
39 5097
New posts   Politics
Wed Sep 07, 2011 @ 03:46
10 1509
New posts   Relationships
Sat Aug 02, 2008 @ 13:11
29 1188
New posts   Poetry
Sun Sep 16, 2012 @ 15:40
16 5045