Johnny C wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:You could find out for yourself that I'm telling you the truth, but you won't.

Why should the onus be on him and not you to provide the information necessary to qualify this statement? It seems like if you're trying to prove your side of a discussion you'd be the one backing it up. Also, weren't we supposed to be watching our ad hominems?

And who does own the Federal Reserve, according to Mr. Paul? There's a board in Washington, and Reserve Banks, I know that. Google tells me something called the "Federal Open Market Committee" is involved?

P.S. If it was so against his policies why did he let it get published? Does his stance on free speech override his stance on racism? He was the editor of the magazine at the time, if I'm not mistaken.

Just go on Wikipedia. Were just tired of having to explain something on here thats already been explained a few times before.


"Newsletter article controversy:

In 1992, issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) included derogatory comments concerning race and politicians. The newsletter accused Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine; called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist"; and said government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults for race-based reasons.[70][71][72]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, explaining they were written by a guest writer[73] and did not represent his views. He said the remarks referring to Rep. Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[52][73] Texas Monthly magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence during previous campaigns, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[52] In 2007, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own";[1] Paul actually criticizes racism as "an ugly form of collectivism".[74]" "

I just copied that from the wikipedia page. You can follow the links on there for more information.

Rick Reuben wrote:Dan Gannon wrote the article for Paul's newsletter.

Did Ron denounce this "article" written by his "newsletter"? If he hasn't someone might want to tell him it's out there. It makes him look like a real fucking right wing slimeball. He might want to address it.

chet wrote:this is the piece that Paul didnt write, but was written under his name for his newsletter.

When is his first documented denouncement of the 1993 "piece"?

The "Ron Paul Political Report" was an 8-page newsletter. If he was willing not just to outsource (without even reading) a short, periodical political report distributed under his own name but to hand it over to a racist moron (who quotes Paul's own eccentric friend as an "expert" on San Francisco riots), he is simply, at best, a bumbling, incompetent fool with racist, moronic staff writers (who interview his personal friends).

Now let's say he outsourced his personal newsletter, without reading it, for four years.

you can find it with the search function.

Well... Dr. Paul refuses to release his own political reports to the public because "voters may not understand his 'tongue-in-cheek, academic' writings." Still, I found these sample quotations, with my "google function," taken from issues of the "Ron Paul Survival Report" between 1990 and 1994. That's the late 20th century, if you're keeping track.

The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend."

* "[Hillary Clinton] is one of the most dangerous women in public life. Not only is she a fanatical abortion advocate, she wants parents to register with the government as a condition for having children to be able to sue and `divorce' themselves from their parents. Maybe her daughter ought to sue her parents for attempting to raise her as a leftist. That sure qualifies as abuse to me."

* "...University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

* "There is good news after the L.A. riots. Statewide, gun sales are up 45% over the same period last year. People have been purchasing a record number. If the cops are not going to take care of the problem, the people will."

* "There is no such thing as a hate crime, only crimes against person and property."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/v ... .side.html

I don't think it matters who "owns" the Federal reserve, so long as the money is accepted when tendered.

I don't think there's much wrong with the IRS, other than a few technical details regarding assumption of liability, asset seizure without process and interest accounting on penalties. The tax codes, as the instruments the IRS operates under, those need work, but the IRS as an institution, well, we need someone to collect the tax and it'll do.

I think a Federal income tax is a great idea and I don't mind paying it. I would like my government to do things in service of its citizens, and I am happy to pay for my share. That it falls short of my aspirations is not reason enough to abandon it.

People who think "small government" is some sort of ideal seem to happily accept that the poor will live and die ignorant and unhealthy, left to rot in only the squalor they can "earn," and that private property and private accumulation of wealth are the only considerations warranting mitigation of the brutal crush of existence. Squatters beaten, thieves to the dungeon, trespassers shot, etc.

Fuck that, fuck them. People matter more than money. People matter more than property. People deserve to live and learn and thrive, even at some expense to other people. We all get to drink from the fountain and we all ought to be willing to man the pump.

I also think the big heavy buildings fell down because they were rammed by airplanes piloted by men with a grudge and then caught fire, so use that to gauge your contempt for my opinions.

Apparently Ron did eventually denounce the comments, nearly 10 years after they were initially published:

wiki wrote:Newsletter article controversy

In 1992, issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) included derogatory comments concerning race and politicians. The newsletter accused Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine; called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist"; and said government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults for race-based reasons.[70][71][72]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, explaining they were written by a guest writer[73] and did not represent his views.

Wow, nearly ten years. What an asshole.

steve wrote:...People who think "small government" is some sort of ideal seem to happily accept that the poor will live and die ignorant and unhealthy, left to rot in only the squalor they can "earn," and that private property and private accumulation of wealth are the only considerations warranting mitigation of the brutal crush of existence. Squatters beaten, thieves to the dungeon, trespassers shot, etc.

Fuck that, fuck them. People matter more than money. People matter more than property. People deserve to live and learn and thrive, even at some expense to other people. We all get to drink from the fountain and we all ought to be willing to man the pump...

Of course people matter more than money and property, but don't assume the wish for smaller government means a person doesn't give a shit about his fellow man. I'm not a heartless person, and neither is Rueben or Chet. That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

I don't see the Democrats, or "liberals", or whatever they call themselves stepping up and getting rid of the social chains. I don't see them doing much of anything, honestly. And don't assume I leave out the Republicans. These people are fucks, both sides, that don't give a shit about us, that's why we're in this mess of a world.

mr.arrison wrote:Apparently Ron did eventually denounce the comments, nearly 10 years after they were initially published:

wiki wrote:Newsletter article controversy

In 1992, issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) included derogatory comments concerning race and politicians. The newsletter accused Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine; called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist"; and said government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults for race-based reasons.[70][71][72]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, explaining they were written by a guest writer[73] and did not represent his views.

Wow, nearly ten years. What an asshole.

Paul realized after it went out what happened, and was told by his political advisers at the time to not bring any attention to it, because since it went out under his name, he should just "accept responsibility for it". I know he regrets that decision today. Maybe they thought it would blow over (pre-internet days)? I dont know why they thought this. It was a poor choice.

Skronk wrote:

steve wrote:...People who think "small government" is some sort of ideal seem to happily accept that the poor will live and die ignorant and unhealthy, left to rot in only the squalor they can "earn," and that private property and private accumulation of wealth are the only considerations warranting mitigation of the brutal crush of existence. Squatters beaten, thieves to the dungeon, trespassers shot, etc.

Fuck that, fuck them. People matter more than money. People matter more than property. People deserve to live and learn and thrive, even at some expense to other people. We all get to drink from the fountain and we all ought to be willing to man the pump...

Of course people matter more than money and property, but don't assume the wish for smaller government means a person doesn't give a shit about his fellow man. I'm not a heartless person, and neither is Rueben or Chet. That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

I don't see the Democrats, or "liberals", or whatever they call themselves stepping up and getting rid of the social chains. I don't see them doing much of anything, honestly. And don't assume I leave out the Republicans. These people are fucks, both sides, that don't give a shit about us, that's why we're in this mess of a world.

Smaller government for the benefit of the poor. Thank you. I was about to say that. Getting rid of the income tax and bringing back the gold standard would certainly help poor people out (33% of the average Americans income every year goes to the government, and peoples savings are eaten up by 2-4% every year by inflation). Paul has said he wouldnt go after Unicef or those organizations that aid the poor (it makes up a small percentage of spending). Also, getting rid of the war on drugs would help out a ton.

A lot of this tax money is just going to the war, and as Paul pointed out, you could eliminate the income tax if you got rid of the war and the military-industrial complex. It only makes up about 1/3 of the budget.

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

So, we help the poor and sick by giving them less of everything they need? So they "toughen up?" What?

steve wrote:

Skronk wrote:That's the whole point, smaller government for the benefit of the poor.

So, we help the poor and sick by giving them less of everything they need? So they "toughen up?" What?

Where's this "toughen up" image coming from?, I certainly don't subscribe to that.

We help the underclass, us included, by getting rid of bullshit laws that choke us, doing away with unnecessary spending like the massive budget the military gets, making the drug war disappear, and by cutting taxes, so people can keep the money they worked hard for. I for one don't want to fund a corrupt, immoral war. I don't want the government to do anything in my name, or in the name of the people, it leads to disaster.