Ron Paul’s supporters have offered a plethora of alibis for why the congressman is not really, really, really responsible for the racist and homophobic sewage mailed out in newsletters bearing his name, and ads for those newsletters bearing his signature.
Most attempts to shift blame are based on the premise that Paul did not himself write the articles (which is likely true). The finger of blame is most often pointed at Lew Rockwell, who edited the newsletter and was vice-president of Ron Paul & Associates, the business name of the enterprise. However, this ignores the fact that it was Ron Paul who hired him for those positions and should have known that Rockwell was capable of such writing, having been closely associated with him for a long time; Rockwell had been Paul’s chief of staff when Paul was in congress and had worked on Paul’s 1988 presidential campaign.
Rockwell, however, denies writing the articles, meaning we would have to accept that they were written by some third party, presumably a freelancer or multiple freelancers. That doesn’t change much either, though, since freelancers are hired (and their work edited) by the editor. Who was Lew Rockwell. Who was hired by Ron Paul. Who knew what he was hiring.
To simplify this, let’s look at it in graphic form:
December 26th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
He has said that he should have paid more attention to them, and he cancelled the newsletters entirely. end of story.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Bob, that’s exactly right.
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, but it shows a real lack of judgement and leadership that those articles went out on his own newsletter.
Not what we need in the White House.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
1. M. Hardly the end of the story. This is a major flaw — a major mistake. A major warning.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Ignoring the supporters, Ron Paul does say he bears moral responsibility for the newsletters and that it was a mistake and oversight on his behalf, but he still isn’t racist.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Logic is hard to ignore when presented as a flow diagram!
I 98% agree, although I do think it is possible that Lew did something without Ron’s knowledge. HOWEVER, even if that were the case, Ron Paul should have cleared it up, published an apology, etc. etc.
Since he didn’t, I’m inclined to believe Ron Paul at some point was racist or had those tendencies or didn’t find it a serious offense. However this goes down, it’s unflattering to RP.
Having said that, it was a long time ago and without further evidence in recent years that he is racist, this is not on stage, front and center, for me.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Nice decision tree Bob. I agree that Paul carries responsibility regardless of the author, but I also believe that it is substantially worse if he penned it himself. If Paul wrote it he’s a major bigot. If he didn’t, he’s responsible for the publication, but the publication may not represent Paul’s personal views. However, responsibility alone ensures that questions about Paul’s bigotry will live on forever.
December 26th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Here are the four reactions to the newsletters, from most common to least common:
1) don’t care. (77%)
2) paranoid fear of the mass media. (18%)
3) hate Ron Paul, use it to smear Paul. (4%)
4) think Paul is a racist. (1%)
December 26th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Bob,
And that is really it. No excuses.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I still think Ron Paul might have some problem with Jewish people. I’d like him to prove me wrong. He otherwise seems like a pleasant man.
So Gingrich is out in Virginia. I’m glad they have basic competence tests for candidates like qualifying to be on the ballot. Who knew.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Which is weird, because Ron Paul could be Jewish. Of course George Soros/Schwartz is a self-loathing Jew.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Very well done. Hard to escape the reality. If I had a newsletter going out in my name and I was a politician, paying attention to content would be a minimum. He says he paid no attention for years. That’s weirdsmobile territory. I’m not buying it.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Bob, you could do one of these for Gingrich failing to submit the required signatures for the ballot in Virginia as well. It would be even simpler.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
It cant even be proven that any of these newsletters that contained the racist remarks even came across the desk of the editor or publisher because anyone with a copier could use a real newsletter to get header and stamped signiture then fake a newsletter. I could of done it with a trs80 radio shack comp and wouldnt of been beyond Newt’s backed candidate that ran against Paul for congress.
here an example
Keith Price Says:
December 26th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Bob, that’s exactly right.
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist,but the fact that he has never uttered a single word like that in 30 years, he is what we need in the White House
December 26th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist. But I do think he finds himself way too comfortable with some questionable company. He has support from those who wish to legalize Prostitution. He has support from those who wish to deregulate illicit drugs. He has support from anarchists. He has support from the bunker/end of the world crowd.
Ron Paul has found himself comfortable as a counter-culture guy. He is known as “Dr. No” in congress. He hasn’t passed anything, or reformed anything of consequence. He is a movement leader for the disenfranchised.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
More evidence that when Newt said he would run a positive campaign he really meant, “I have no money for negative ads, so I’ll slip in all my negative campaigning in media events.”
http://www.therightscoop.com/special-report-does-expose-on-ron-paul/
December 26th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
13
Rob, that’s just silly. Ron Paul has already acknowledged he should have paid more attention. If it wasn’t in his newsletter, he’d easily prove it was a fake.
The things some supporters will say to explain away bad news is astonishing.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
7. If only that were true…
Most people familiar with the story think Paul is/was a bigot or that he made a serious error not knowing the content of his own newsletter. If that weren’t true, no one would be talking about it. In my opinion he WAS a bigot (as was far more common back then) and he’s since seen the light. I don’t think he wrote the article, but I don’t think it offended him–or he would have written an apology within a few years of the incident. I don’t think he’s a bigot and this story doesn’t change my current perspective of Paul. It does lower his chances as a general election candidate though.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
The newsletter tree is just like being President: the buck stop at the top.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
He wouldnt know for sure if they were real or not , all he can do is say he never read or authorized them . they could of been forge and this could be why no one on his staff admitt to writting them and why Ron didnt know they existed
December 26th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Yeah, that’ll convince undecided voters. It’ll also ensure Obama’s billion dollar campaign machine never touches the issue if Paul is the nominee.
Nothing to see here.
Right.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
This is much more telling and much more disturbing. I look at Ron Paul from someone who knows him best.
http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/
December 26th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
15. “Newt hit Ron Paul over the controversial newsletters today…”
Sure glad Newt’s committed to running a positive campaign. This thing would get messy if not for his example.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
19. How do you reconcile your comment with #1? If he never read them or authorized them, how did he have the authority to shut them down? Why should he have paid more attention to them?
December 26th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
He actually published newsletters and that is what he shut down.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Rob: If forgery was a legitimate possibility, Paul would have disowned them rather than say he should have paid more attention to them. He knows they were his and he’s taken responsibility for having bigoted content in his newsletter, though not for writing it personally.
Nice job trying to disassociate your guy from controversy though.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Why flog a dead horse???? Ron Paul has no chance of winning the election, period, end of story. Why worry about the rest.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
If it was a good forgery than that would leave wondering which of his staff wrote them and after getting a no from everyone he would have to accept responsibility. maybe it hasnt even crossed his mind these could be forgeries
December 26th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Bob,
He HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY! It’s funny that you guys just keep bringing this up. But let’s face it…he’s apologized for the content…and said he should’ve paid more attention to what was being printed. Let’s look at it another way.
If i were an evangelical christian(i am) and published a newsletter….and in that newsletter we wrote articles about how mormonism is a cult….would that disqualify me to be president? It’s a religious opinion. We find that less offensive overall…and yet the last 2 cycles have made a lot of hay about comments dealing with mormonism. Why does it matter in a political context WHAT i believe about mormonism personally? It doesn’t. Now let’s say that instead of it being about mormonism…my newsletter published racist comments. I was unaware of those comments…and don’t condone that sort of thing….but is it fair that one type of free speech is protected…and another is not?
Should we be throwing ALL of these candidates out?
The fact is…EVERYONE has made mistakes. If the worst thing you can say about Ron Paul is that he failed to oversee a NEWSLETTER…then you are struggling to find substantive attacks against him. Ron Paul has a large base of black supporters. In fact…he will absolutely do better among blacks than any other republican candidate could do against obama. I’m very confident of that. So….let it go.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
thunder
unless you are a prophet we will just have to let the voters decide
December 26th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
28
Really? Responsibility is when you accept the consequences. All Ron has done is admitted it was bad. That’s not responsibility.
Reminds me of an old comedy routine about Nixon and Watergate. “Nixon” says,
“I want you to know that I take full responsibility… But, NOT the blame.
“Let me explain the difference…
“People who take the BLAME lose their jobs. People who take the RESPONSIBILITY do not.”
—
Paul hasn’t accepted responsibility until he accepts the consequences for it.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
28
Did you REALLY just compare reprehensible racist comments about blacks to a “religious opinion”?
Wow.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thunder in 26 made the best and most important comment in this thread. Let me add that it would be foolish to pile on Paul at this point and PO his followers, folks who are the most likely to go third party. Paul will wash out on his own, can we leave the incendiary crap at the door?
Neat flow chart, and pretty colors.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
No Ron Paul supporters that I know of claim that Paul isn’t responsible for those newsletters. Paul himself has taken responsibility time and time again. That doesn’t mean we can’t call upon Lew Rockwell to confess (or to tell the names of those who did write them) to help put this issue to rest, though.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
28,
Racism is a moral opinion. I think it’s wrong to judge people based on their race or religion. So yes….they are comparable. When people say mitt romney isn’t fit to be president because of his mormonism…isn’t that a prejudice? It is. And so is racism. We have to shed these thoughts and feelings…and LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
28. “In fact…he will absolutely do better among blacks than any other republican candidate could do against obama. I’m very confident of that.”
Of course you are. Paul supporters are incredibly confident about countless irrational possibilities.
That said, I think this is a dead issues for the primary. I just don’t think Paul is a bigot (today) and I don’t really care about whether he had inappropriate views in the past. The only reason it matters is that it clearly would present Paul problems if he won the nomination–another impossibility that I’m sure you confident of.
December 26th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Again, I find it sad that we have to come up with reasons not to like these people. Can I not vote against Ron Paul because he believes in conspiracy theories and doesn’t understand basic economics or foreign policy? It’s like when we discarded Herman Cain because of his penchant for women and not because he knows nothing about high school level public policy and his 999 plan was math defying.
No, I don’t think that Paul is a racist. Yes, I do think he would absolutely destroy the economy if he get his hands on it. All in the name of liberty.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Wateredseeds,
Racism is WRONG, and we should totally denounce it. It is absolutely NOT comparable to a religion because we hold a belief in this country that religions should be accepted.
Racism is not accepted.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I sure wish that my fellow Rombots would stop being such spazzes. Just calm down. Paul will not win the nomination.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Bloodshed
By the end of this primary all the candidate will be so completely vetted that all that will be efective will be national issues. Where Paul has the leg up on all of them is obama was elected because he said he would bring our troops home which he lied. Paul will bring them home therefor will get that vote, plus almost all the indys, and all of the repubs as nominee. the other repubs cant pull the peace vote so obama will be the less of 2 evils.
So a vote for anyone other than Paul is a vote for obama
December 26th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
38
Yes, true.
I have been arguing for weeks that a Paul win in IA could be BETTER than a Romney win in IA.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
When people say that Paul should accept the consequences of the newsletters, what do they mean? What consequences? He’s not going to be fined or anything, so what consequences do you mean? If you mean consequences as in them being used by the media, then I think Paul has more than enough suffered the consequences of this decades old mistake. He has said time and again that he bears moral responsibility for the content of the newsletters and that it was his management mistake and misplaced trust that allowed this to happen. I’m curious, what other consequences are there, aside from political blowback?
December 26th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
37 Masscon, It seems to me that watereseeds is arguing that religious bigotry and racism are similar not that religion is comparable to racism. Of course the line may get blurred because some people’s religions may involve opposition to another religion and that opposition may seem like bigotry to some. I don’t think racism and religious bigotry are entirely comparable since religions involve a certain level of choice and they effect a person’s behavior more then skin color.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
40. MC – I’m guessing here. Is it because A) it’s not Newt? or B) because a lot of people would be alarmed and start shoving behind Romney? or C) Iowa has a reputation for forwarding the non-winner? Or some combination?
December 26th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
43
B
December 26th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
So like ABR except in the case of RP…
LOL
December 26th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
“I have been arguing for weeks that a Paul win in IA could be BETTER than a Romney win in IA.”
Not if you’re a social Conservative. Paul will not be the nominee. But Paul winning Iowa damages the Iowa Caucuses, which in turn damages social conservatism.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
If Paul wins IA, this is what I see happening:
Fox News (the only network that matters in a GOP primary) will start raising questions about the merits of IA being 1st.
Then, if Paul comes in 2nd in NH, pretty much all other candidates except Paul will be discarded as weaklings.
Plus, Paul would get tons of heat and I think a lot of people would ditch Newt and the rest to support Mitt to deny Paul any more delegates.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
28
Really? Responsibility is when you accept the consequences. All Ron has done is admitted it was bad. That’s not responsibility.
Reminds me of an old comedy routine about Nixon and Watergate. “Nixon” says,
“I want you to know that I take full responsibility… But, NOT the blame.
“Let me explain the difference…
“People who take the BLAME lose their jobs. People who take the RESPONSIBILITY do not.”
—
Paul hasn’t accepted responsibility until he accepts the consequences for it.
so let me get this straight, he should step down as a congressman, then I guess he should drop out of this race, while we are at it maybe he should also be locked up. Take a good look at every canidate and every president from the last 20 years, Clinton(scandals from governorship to the White House), Bush(where would you like to start, do not have enough time to finish this one), Obama(look at Jeremiah Wright and the views he shared, what about fast and furious, or solyndra, is he not responsible for that since it is his administration)but I guess that Ron Paul does not have the moral strength or leadership quality as these fine patriots. No no no, it has to be Newt(ethics scandal, just to start) or Mitt(I will bet you $10,000 that you will not have a clue what this flip-flop will due if elected), but all of them have so much more moral values than the racist who was delivering children of minorities in the sixties.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
46
Iowa damages social Conservatism plenty as it is. Iowa ought to be a primary, not a caucus.
I suspect that if Paul wins IA, the RNC will demand that IA become a primary state or else lose its position as 1st.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Killburn, why should Iowa be the keeper of the torch for SoCons? For crying out loud, the lousy state keeps voting for democrat presidential candidates by ever widening margins. If we really want a SoCon state to be first in the nation then could we at least choose one that isn’t becoming a democrat stronghold? Like Alabama or Mississippi. Or if we want a swing state then go for Missouri. It’s about time for Iowa to prove what good it can do for America instead of merely being the depository of massive ethanol and farm subsidies.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
every time you diss Iowa you just piss them off, I wouldnt be surprised if just to spite the media that Paul gets 80% of the vote. now that would pursuade the rest of the nation to back Paul and to truly look beyond MSM for the truth
December 26th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
For those of you jumping on my RESPONSIBILITY comment…
I don’t know what the responsibility should be. But, simply saying, “Yeah, that was wrong.” is only admitting it was wrong, it’s not taking responsibility.
If I steel a candy bar from the store, I can apologize and tell them it was wrong, but it’s not taking responsibility for it is it? Responsibility suggests some sort of reparation.
I’ve not seen any effort from Ron Paul to take responsibility — he’s just admitted it’s wrong.
—
And, all I’m saying is I think it will be a problem for him. I’m not slamming him to get him to lose. I’m not worried about that.
I agree with some of the others that a strong showing from Ron Paul in Iowa is good for Mitt. And, as Matthew Killburn says, it probably damages Iowa’s reputation. But, I also feel Iowa’s ultra conservatism has a disproportionate influence on who gets the nomination.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
To those who say Paul has disavowed this and that’s the “end of the story’,” are you willing to accept Romney’s explanation about MA care as the end of the story?
Or are you going to keep applying a double standard to maintain the false notion that Paul is without blemish?
December 26th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Are we absolutely certain that Ron Paul hired Lew Rockwell?
If so, blaming the employee is the stupidest defense ever.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
39. “So a vote for anyone other than Paul is a vote for obama…”
I think you’re delusional in your fanatic infatuation w/Doc Paul. However, Paul will certainly get my vote if it’s Paul vs. Obama. Some posters have suggested a Paul nom would push them from the party. Personally, I’d take Paul’s positives + his penchant for looney toons over the positives of Perry/Newt + their penchant for corruption. I like Paul more than most people who don’t support him. I don’t see him as dangerous as many detractors do, but I don’t see him as competent as his followers do.
I’d prefer a reasonable, experienced, controlled executive like Mitt.
December 26th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
53. I don’t have a problem with Romney nor his MassCare, but in fairness, it’s not the same thing. Mitt is still defending MassCare (as I believe he should) whereas Ron has disavowed the racist stuff.
So, no double standard, there, on the part of Ron Paul supporters.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Romney was a part of a VC group, there is no proof that he is a reasonable,experience or controlled executive. all it means is his partners like his money
December 26th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Louis Farrakhan backs Ron Paul people, if you don’t beleive it YouTube it. Time for the smear campaign people to drop this one and put it to rest. Ron Paul is no racist. How about we instead look at the fact of other candidates being financially supported by big businesses so if they get in the white house they will be owned and controlled by them, because that is a TRUE story!!!!
December 26th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Pete (54): Fair question, but I imagine it’s unprovable, unless someone sat in on the meeting. RP&A was a tiny company of about ten employees, including Paul family members — so I think it’s fair to assume the boss (Paul) hired the VP/Editor (Rockwell).
Before that, Rockwell had been Paul’s chief of staff for several years. It is unthinkable that a congressman would not be the one hiring a chief of staff.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
This issue can be settled very simply. Were those articles published under Ron Paul’s newsletter? If the answer is yes, then he’s responsible. His newsletter, his name, his responsibility.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I mean honestly, someone said he’s not gonna be reamed as bad as Romney or Gingrich would be… Please!!! He is blocked on debates and winning all the polls but the media will usually never say that. They even try brainwashing people that he has no chance!! Fair and balanced huh?!? Please people, this media is not telling truths and omits the truth. Do your own research to get facts, don’t leave it up to what they want you to see and beleive.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
60
Bingo.
And EVEN IF he’s not responsible, does anyone think the MSM and Obama campaigns will care?
December 26th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“Louis Farrakhan backs Ron Paul people,”
LOL. I wonder why Paul hasn’t publicized this endorsement a bit more?
December 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Whooooooo cares????
I mean 6 cases of potential racist comments 20 years ago? Is that the most important thing people need to be looking into regarding history in this election?
How about looking into US intervention in foreign affairs in Iran that has made them hate us – for interfering, not for being free? That history seems a little more important than who said black people stopped rioting when welfare checks arrived – but maybe some people also vote based on the color of ones tie, or their haircut? To each his own I guess.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
56
It not so much the idea of defending versus disavowing, but rather the concept of “they gave explanation X, end of story.” Romney has explained his decisions and policies, and elaborated on why they’re conservative.
If Paul’s supporters won’t accept that as an “end of story” scenario, then I refuse to buy Mel’s “end of story” with regard to Paul.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
64
Are you kidding?
How EASY do you THINK it’s going to be to beat Obama?
You think that Ron Paul’s newsletter means nothing for the general election?
December 26th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
63
Birds of a feather flock together.
Louis Farrakhan = anti-semite.
Ron Paul Supporters = anti-semites (most).
December 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
I think the MSM played that card to early , but even right now it is not effecting Paul’s rise in Polls
December 26th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
The only effect it had was to increase donations to Paul
December 26th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Deleted — religion-baiting.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Deleted.
December 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Deleted.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Deleted.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
rob: If the newsletters were forged, presumably they wouldn’t have gone out to the subscribers. If so, you’d think that someone who saved their old Ron Paul newsletters would have stepped forward to say, “Hey, I have the real December 1989 [or whatever month] issue here, and the offensive quotes aren’t in it.”
December 26th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
66
Ron Paul polls as well as Mitt in most heads up against Obama, and this is with no media help. The more people hear his message and learn about him, the more his base expands. This is not the same for every other canidate, they get a few minutes in the spotlight until voters begin to understand the facts, Cain, Perry, Newt, ect… Mitt alienates a large portion of the republican base, the same base that you need to “beat Obama”.
Ron Paul has as good if not better chance to beat Obama.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Anyone could of mailed forged newsletters. These newsletters only needed to take a comment out of context by changing it to read racially. but it is funny that only one copy o newsletters has surfaced that had these comments in it. Why hasnt there been 4000 show up????????/
December 26th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
57
LOL. Rob, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.
Bain Capital was NOT a VC group. VC simply invests. Bain got INVOLVED. They worked with the companies to improve them.
PLUS, we have his massive success in salvaging the SLC Olympics.
AND, we have his very successful, conservative executive experience as governor of MA.
So, yeah, Mitt’s got the executive credentials.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
#10 Saveourship: I don’t know what you mean when you say Ron Paul “could be Jewish”. I mean, he isn’t Jewish now, nor was he in the past. In an interview at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2008/01/Ron-Pauls-Christian-Values-Pro-Life-Anti-War.aspx, he talks about growing up going to church, how his parents wanted him and his brothers to become ministers (two of his brothers did become ministers), joining a church, and being an evangelical.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
58
Tommy, are you a visiting democrat? Because that’s what your argument sounds like. Republicans are not supposed to be afraid of big business. Republicans are supposed to understand that big businesses pay big taxes. Big businesses create jobs. Big businesses support and strengthen the economy.
And, it’s rather silly of you to EQUATE support by big business to being CONTROLLED by them. Businesses and individuals SUPPORT a candidate because they believe that candidate will benefit them.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
if I had one of those suppossibly racist newsletters it would be listed on ebay for $10,000
December 26th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
#76 rob: I would guess that some of the newsletters were thrown away after all these years, but on the other hand I am sure Ron Paul has some devoted fans who saved all their newsletters. If they were 8-to-12-page monthly newsletters, they wouldn’t take up that much space. But if you were right that there was only one forged copy with the racist statements and 4,000 real copies without the racist statements, then someone could step forward with one of the nonracist copies. I don’t think that’s going to happen, though.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
josh
I am jewish but am christian by belief
December 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Keith, I’m neither and not would I be stupid enough to pick either. Your good with twisting words. Republicans are not supposed to fear big business but not supposed to sell out to them and make decisions based off of what benefits the company before the people. If this message gets erased I’m out of here.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
There is a large problem with this flow chart. It implies that it doesn’t matter whether RP was a bad manager or a racist, these are equally disqualifying. The former has no room for interpretation, it is clearly disqualifying. The latter can be more widely interpreted, and is probably not disqualifying, though others have different opinions. This flow chart implies that they are both equally disqualifying, and therefore immoral, and that premise is wrong.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
By the way, Romney needs to be coming forward with his income tax returns or he will plummet in the polls
December 26th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
John, if Paul is a bad manager, how about Newt Gingrich not getting enough signatures in his own state of VA and now not qualified. If Paul is bad for that Newt is a horrible manager.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Keith
i havent come across a VC group that didnt want control, but it if you want you can dismiss the VC but you cant dismiss that the credit belongs to the group in which we dont even know if mitt provided any thing other than money
December 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Keith
Mitt may have ran on repub ticket but in no way isthis man a conservative, his records show him as a rino
December 26th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Pretzel logic again for Tommy A. Simply because a business supports a candidate that it feels has policies that will benefit said company does not equate to the candidate selling out to said business. Holy cow, can folks really be so confused?
December 26th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
If these newsletters is the worst anyone has got to throw in Ron Paul’s face, then the future looks bright for America as well as the rest of the world. When all is said and done, who cares about newsletters so old the paper has turned yellow?
Nobody called Reagan a racist for wanting to pave the whole damn country of Viet-nam and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas.
Maybe all the neocons should try getting out of the sandbox.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
75
Are you saying the media HELPS Romney?
BAAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
If it weren’t for the media, Romney would be polling 70 – 10 over the Democrat primary candidates at worst, steaming toward a momentous re-election right now.
It’s the sheer fact that Ron Paul has NOT gotten media attention that he even registers in the polls!
If the voters heard about these newsletters – or READ them, heard his borderline 9/11 truther remarks, and looked at some of his votes in Congress, this man would be at less than 5% in the polls.
For you, or anyone to say that Paul could beat Obama isn’t a knee-slapper, it’s a possibility of a stroke from intense laughter.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
the only reason Mitt won the governors rase in Mass is because he was more of a liberal than the democrat running against him and done so well because he got along with the democratic majority there because they were like minded on socialist programs
December 26th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
92
LOL.
Take it from ME (read my username).
Romney won because of his record from the Olympics. In 2002 during his election, he was a borderline hero in this country for saving our country’s face in the 2002 (post-9/11) Olympics.
And as governor, he kicked ass and made everyone in this state almost proud to live here.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
So your really a CINO
December 26th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
94
HA!
Romney is to my left. I just realize that LEADERSHIP is more important than IDEOLOGY, especially with this country being at such a loss for honest and strong leaders.
Romney is an old-fashioned patriot and it’s refreshing to see someone as wise, level-headed, and steady winning this primary.
My desire for abolishing the IRS in favor of a sales tax, abolishing the Department of Education, and abolishing government unions takes the BACK SEAT to strong leadership, IMO.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
83
OK, so why are you posting the INSINUATION that merely receiving SUPPORT by big business MEANS that the candidate is selling out to them. That’s just flat out wrong.
What you need to look for is the integrity and character of the candidate. And, you’ll find Mitt is above reproach in this respect.
Perry and Newt? Not so much.
And, btw, no one deletes post, here, just because they don’t agree with them. You get deleted if you’re far off topic or go too far in attacking other posters or the family of the candidates.
And, it appears most comments that CONTRIBUTE to the conversation are kept even if they go beyond 4 posts.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Hitler was a strong leader, would you support him. Leadership without true values that you want is just a vote out of your want to have a president that came from Mass
December 26th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
perry was a great governor but as a texan I would still want to back someone that would possess atleast some of my values
December 26th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
97
I have standards, you nitwit. Did I have to say it?
In case you’re still curious, here are my minimum requirements:
Pro-life
Lower taxes
Repeal Obamacare
Strong ethical background
Strong personal life
Strong against illegals
No crony capitalism
IQ over 30
December 26th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Wow then you should vote for only candidates that meets all above
THATS PAUL
December 26th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
100
I forgot to say that my candidate needs to also express some basic concerns about Iran getting weapons of mass annihilation.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Talk to the CIA and to The PM of Israel and you will find they agree with Paul
December 26th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
102
Really? Have you spoken with them yourself?
Wow, you sure know your stuff.
/sarc
December 26th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Ron Paul finally gets the attention his supporters wanted from the media, and they’re even more unhappy.
Face it, Ron Paul’s completely unelectable. In the primaries as well as the general election. Only 2-16% of people are libertarian depending on how you look at it, and that won’t win any national election.
If I were libertarian, I’d focus on local elections, and ideas. Pretending that Ron Paul could possibly win is silly. As a republican I don’t think Ron Paul should even be at the debates. He isn’t really a republican, and he won’t support the republican nominee. The debates should be about finding the best republican nominee, no giving Ron Paul a platform to espouse his crazy ideas.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
85. Tommy. LOL. Silly.
87
Rob, you’re just wrong. Everyone who worked with Mitt at Bain talks about his skill in digging into the details of a company and finding the waste and weaknesses and in finding solutions. That’s his skill. And, you’re either ignorant or malicious in suggesting Mitt was nothing but a money man.
88.
Rob, I call BULL. You show me any part of his record that indicates he’s not conservative.
You can point to abortion, but that was a long time ago and when the first bill came across his desk as governor, he realized he couldn’t sign a bill that ended life of a fetus.
You can point to gun control, but even the NRA came out and said he was a good advocate for them as governor.
Support for gays? Well, he’s always been for gay RIGHTS (i.e. no workplace discrimination), but NEVER for gay marriage. In fact, he’s the only governor to actively fight against it in Washington.
Smaller government? Check.
Lower taxes? Check.
Balanced budget. Check.
So where in his record, Ron, would you say he’s not conservative?
90
LOL! Tommy, your propensity for logic fallacy is quite remarkable.
No one is suggesting the newsletters is the WORST about Ron. In fact, it’s probably the LEAST. But, it’s still significant.
The WORST is probably his foreign policy.
Next worst is his inability to ever get anything past. Ever. He’s got some good ideas, but he’s never been able to build a coalition that gets anything done. None of his bills have ever passed. If he can’t get his fellow members of the House to join in his causes, how can anyone believe he’d be better at it as President?
92
OK, Rob. So, it’s clear you’re not interested in fact nor truth. So, this will probably be my last attempt at an adult conversation with you. Your posts are nearly as bad as CraigForWhomever’s for their ability to be totally false and fantasy.
Mitt was not considered more liberal in MA. But, he was considered the one who could get more things done.
Did you know that the Dem Scorecard gave him an F grade for his LACK of support of furthering democrat issues? Check it out:
http://www.ontheissues.org/MA-Gov/Mitt_Romney.htm
If you want to be taken seriously, put some truth and sound logic in your comments. You can look to Smack and Matt MWS for examples of posts that are anti-Romney yet have truth and logic.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
97 Personally I wouldn’t support Hitler, his racist newsletter would tip me off to his lack of character.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Massachusetts Conservative
you need to actually research Ron Paul instead of letting the MSM tell you lies, I reearch Mitt and found He is not a conservative which you had first had knowledge of.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
107. Rob, we don’t need MSM. We all watched him in the debates. His statements from those, alone, are enough to know he doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House.
And, you’d “researched” Mitt? LOL! Perhaps you should look up the definition because what you’ve been posting have not been factual and thus could not be the result of true research.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
107
Excuse me? Are you saying that Ron Paul DOES have a problem with Iran getting nukes? Because… he said he didn’t care, and that they have the right to get nukes, and he agrees that they should have them.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Keith
LOL
You cant get everything from a debate because time is so limited, you are so misinformed on just how many actually support Rons possitions and conclusions like the CIA,911 commission reprt, Israel PM . you are just being fed BS about Iran just like you were fed BS about Iraq.
Ron Paul is the only ONE that would support a declaration of war if this country was actually threatened and would use tactical units to hunt down individual threats.
so drink your kool aid
December 26th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
106…aspire – THAT was funny,
December 26th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Massachusetts Conservative
yes Ron Paul has problems with Iran having Nukes, He just is trying to explain why they want them and it might be possible to remove that reason with talks of peace. but if Israel want to stp them He would allow them because that is their business not OURS.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
110
THAT explains it. You’ve heard that phrase too many times in your little “farm”. So, since YOU had to drink the kool aid you assume anyone who disagrees with your fantasy world must also be drinking it.
I get it now. I’m so sorry for you.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
110
So Ron Paul is the single mainstream candidate? LOL.
December 26th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
LOL at this while conversation.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
whole*
December 26th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
110. Rob – Let’s have a kool-aid vote
Everyone who thinks rob is drinking kool-aid and that his words defy reality and facts – like this comment:
#110 – LIKE
rob – you seem to be copying and pasting from somewhere because your words come across as a poorly concocted story and you’re addressing those who spend above average time researching every candidate and every issue.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
*** #117 – LIKE
December 26th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
@109- stop, dont even know what your talking about YouTube has people that post their opinions about Ron Paul, the media posts what they want. About Iran, we never tried to leave them alone, but messing with them doesn’t help… Is that not logical? Drop knowledge not bombs.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
http://cvrp2012.com/
really spend some time researching
this site below and link above would be a great start
Combat Veterans for Ron Paul 2012
December 26th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Aspire (106): “97 Personally I wouldn’t support Hitler, his racist newsletter would tip me off to his lack of character.”
I know this was meant as a joke, but it has some real meaning. Adolf didn’t have a newsletter, but he did have Mein Kampf, which should have tipped people off. Unfortunately, a lot of people thought he couldn’t possibly really mean what he wrote in it.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Right Bob, forget the fed robbing Americans blind and putting us in a debt that we can’t pay. For that we’re no longer THEE super power of the world but still policing countries like we are (ultimately running up more debt). But let’s worry about something that was put in a newsletter that really is nothing compared to the real issue. Bob, your reasoning with not wanting your freedom cracks me up.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
121 – Oh my Godwin… You know, I always felt like I could hear goose-stepping just outside my door every time Paul started talking about defending the Constitution and ending militarism.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Six mom, why did Kissinger almost fall out of his seat being security admin after 911 and them asking him if one of his clients were bin laden? W. Bush had a debt paid off by a bin laden. Rumsfeld swore Iraq had WMD after the war he was questioned on CNN about saying he was sure and knew where they were… He said he didn’t say that. They quoted him verbatim and he just sat there speechless. C’mon. Get it together.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
BenR (123): “121 – Oh my Godwin”
Hitler was brought up by your boy Tommy. Aspire responded to him (with a well-justified laugh), and I responded to Aspire’s comment.
So if you want to invoke Godwin — please address it to Tommy.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
http://m.youtube.com/#/profile?user=rctube1958&v=vyAGIKfp81Q&view=videos
It’s the message, not the man.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
http://m.youtube.com/#/profile?user=rctube1958&v=vyAGIKfp81Q&view=videos
It’s the message, not the man.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Deleted — Racist.
December 26th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
125 – Bob, you compared Ron Paul to Hitler @121. If someone else did as well, then they also used a poor historical analogy.
December 26th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
129. I didn’t, but that’s OK. This thread jumped the shark about fifty comments ago.
December 26th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
#122 Tommy: Whatever candidate we are dealing with, we have to take the good with the bad. The fact that Ron Paul may be right about certain issues doesn’t mean that his supporters can just ignore the problems in his past or for that matter his present, especially not if those problems are going to be thrown back in his face on a daily basis by the Obama campaign and the media if Ron becomes the nominee.
#128 R: I realize this is not the point of your comment, but yes, there are lots of people who believe that Israel should be flooded with massive foreign populations and blended out of existence. That’s what the supporters of the “Palestinian right to return” advocate. Other countries would be better examples for your point.
December 26th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“I didn’t, but that’s OK.”
So Lew Rockwell wrote that?
December 26th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
[...] Ron Paul Newsletter Decision [...]
December 26th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
131- I see your point and agree, however, my point is that six mom was saying “he’s on look-aid” because he likes Ron Paul. If she is going to judge him she should have her facts in good order.
December 26th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
129
rob (RP supporter) used Hitler to slam home a point about Romney in #97
I hate when people use Hitler to make their points so I pointed out how ironic it was to use Hitler in a posting that discusses your candidates racist newsletters in 106.
Then you condemned comparing Hitler to a candidate – thus basically condemning rob’s comment.
Where did that mission accomplished poster go – I could use it right now.
BTW according to this poll 93.3% of American Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t836078/
So if you live in a glass house – don’t drive a bulldozer.
December 26th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
OK, Well I see Tommy and Ron are both impossible to reason with. They’re now on my DO NOT READ. DO NOT REPLY. list.
Ridiculous.
December 26th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
136. Oops. I meant Tommy and Rob.
December 26th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
81.Joshua Says:
December 26th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
#76 rob: I would guess that some of the newsletters were thrown away after all these years, but on the other hand I am sure Ron Paul has some devoted fans who saved all their newsletters. If they were 8-to-12-page monthly newsletters, they wouldn’t take up that much space. But if you were right that there was only one forged copy with the racist statements and 4,000 real copies without the racist statements, then someone could step forward with one of the nonracist copies. I don’t think that’s going to happen, though.
Joshua
isnt it funny how nobody that received the supposed racist newsletters felt they were racist enough to show them to a news source during the late 80′ and early 90′s, isnt it also funny that it wasnt until he ran for congress 3 years later that these newsetters were considered racist and magically appeared. like i said this really dont add up . Also Newt was backing the opponent of Paul and we all know he is a liar which was confirmed today by his divorce papers to his first wife.He divorced her while in treatment for cancer stating she wasnt young enough or pretty enough for a future president. his mistress he left her for was a young intern just like clintons
December 26th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Twenty something years now, asked and answered, but people still can’t let it go. You sir are obsessed with nonsense and you probably are a stay-at-home-son. Grow up and grow a set.
“They wouldn’t be this angry if we weren’t winning.”
–Ron Paul
December 26th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
91
Glad I made you laugh. Mitt is so far out of touch with the budget that all other thing that he talks about is useless. This entire country is on the take and we are getting deeper in debt with China for it. We as a country can not spend like we are. Have you listen to his plan on the budget? So to youre point of Mitt and no help from the media, I say bull. This man gets more coverage than anyone, not to mention the amount of money he has spent, for what, 17% in Iowa, oh yeah Iowa does not matter now that Ron may win. Tell me, who receives the most support from individuals, what about military, how about volunteers that just show up to help becuase they believe in there canidate. 5% my ass, he is polling well because of his message and his character, not because of his money or his charm. I have looked at the papers, looked at his past, as I did in 2008, still the same message, dont think I can say that about Mitt
December 26th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
140. Doctor Paul to patient:
“I’m sorry, the damage is too severe. In order to save the head, I’m afraid we’re going to have to amputate his body.”
Jason, Ron Paul may have a more aggressive economic plan. And, it may be that we really do need to cut $1 Trillion. But that doesn’t mean anything because he’d never pull it off. Congress would never vote for it. And, if they DID vote for it, the result would be the same as if he amputated the body to save the head.
That’s the biggest problem with Ron Paul. He says stuff that he could never get passed.
Don’t believe me? Just look at his record in the House.
December 26th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
140 Paul’s seeing a bump because all the other FOTM have failed, and in the last Iowa poll Romney leads by 5%. The delusion RP supporters live under is that they believe Paul will take off if he can get some momentum going. Paul’s views are supported by a tiny minority of people and disliked by the vast majority of people.
What’s worse is even if RP’s views were 100% in line with America, the he’d still have enough baggage to sink his campaign. If Ron Paul wins Iowa he’ll still lose the nomination by a landslide. It’s best to accept that and try and focus on the issues that are important to you.
December 26th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
aspire,keith and all the rest of of the romulans why dont you take your arguement to our combat veterns,tell them they dont know foriegn policy, call them stupid or STFU
http://cvrp2012.com/
December 26th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
142: “What’s worse is even if RP’s views were 100% in line with America, the he’d still have enough baggage to sink his campaign. If Ron Paul wins Iowa he’ll still lose the nomination by a landslide. It’s best to accept that and try and focus on the issues that are important to you.”
I wish Ron Paul cared enough about the issues he says are important to step aside and let someone else be the face of libertarianism. I think the number of people who agree with him on at least the debt and size-of-government issues is growing tremendously.
But as long as Ron Paul insists on being the messenger, that message is going nowhere.
December 26th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
#138 rob: Well, the newsletters didn’t “magically” appear. There are interviews with Ron from 1995 in which he mentions that he was publishing a newsletter.
Why didn’t anyone bring the racism in the newsletters up with the press at the time they were published? Well, who would be subscribing and reading the newsletters other than Ron’s most devoted fans and apologists? Even if some readers were offended by the content, they would most likely have dealt with it by writing to Ron saying, “Dear Dr. Paul, I am disappointed by the racist comments in the newsletter. Please cancel my subscription.” There would have been little point in contacting the media, because at the time, Ron was in political oblivion, having been out of Congress for years and having last run for office as a Libertarian. On the other hand, when Ron ran for Congress again in 1996, the issue of the newsletters did come up, because Ron was once again newsworthy.
Anyway, you are the only person I know of who is trying to defend Ron by saying that the newsletters are forged. If you want to make this argument convincing, you will need to find copies of the real newsletters. Of course, given that these newsletters came up during Ron’s last presidential campaign, I would think that the Ron Paul campaign would already have been searching high and low for the real newsletters if there were real newsletters and the racist ones were forged.
Finally, Newt’s involvement in this issue is irrelevant to me. I support Mitt anyway. But even so, Newt’s divorce from his first wife who had cancer was longer ago than these newsletters were published, and Newt has been more open about his divorces during this campaign than Ron has been about the newsletter. At least Newt hasn’t been trying to say that some unidentified person who he refuses to name was responsible for the breakup of his marriages.
December 26th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Joshua Says:
December 26th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
#138 rob: Well, the newsletters didn’t “magically” appear. There are interviews with Ron from 1995 in which he mentions that he was publishing a newsletter.
Joshua
the newsletters always existed 4 different types but the racial newsletters just magically appeared. the intervue was about them but for some reason Paul didnt recognize them as quoted saying they must be being taken out of context.
December 27th, 2011 at 12:42 am
“1) don’t care. (77%)
2) paranoid fear of the mass media. (18%)
3) hate Ron Paul, use it to smear Paul. (4%)
4) think Paul is a racist. (1%)”
81.7% of all percentages are made up on the spot.
December 27th, 2011 at 12:46 am
“fake a newsletter”
Not even Ron Paul is using that defense. Perhaps Tens of thousands of these newsletters went out. Why would someone raise money for Ron Paul using the real return address? I think you, like Paul, are flying by the seat of your pants.
December 27th, 2011 at 2:35 am
I guess Ron Paul will not be held responsible for what members of his cabinet do.
December 27th, 2011 at 7:51 am
David
I am not saying that someone even circulated them for Paul, I am saying it is possible that someone altered some that was circulated to use to smear Paul during 1996 congressional election. this was a very plain jane formatt that even a 12 year old could recreate. The reason Paul never said this possibility is as a Honest Man he knows he never wrote them,never authorized any newsletter with that wording, and doesnt know anyone on his staff that he feels would of.But since they bear his name as publisher he is taking responsibility if this was an oversight on his part.I could alter my churchs newsletter and they would look like it came from it but the people of thechurch would know it was not written by the church
December 27th, 2011 at 9:27 am
rob: That’s the point. If someone faked the newsletter, then Ron is not responsible for it and should not be blamed at all. But in that case, there would have been a real newsletter the same month that Ron should be able to display to prove that the other one was fake. Furthermore, some of his subscribers would have come forward and said, “I read the Ron Paul newsletter every month and I never saw any of those racist comments in the newsletter. The articles people are talking about are fake.”
But, in fact, Ron hasn’t displayed a real newsletter to prove that the other one was fake, and none of his subscribers have come forward to say that the articles didn’t really appear in the newsletter.
Thus, it seems pretty obvious that those articles really did appear in Ron Paul’s newsletters.
December 27th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Really you believe that people would save a monthly newsletter that only had a circulation of 8k at best from 20+YRS ago. I a not sure how these newsletters were backed up considering a floppy disc was the only storage device I had then. I have newspaper clippings saved from 20 years ago that are now almost unreadable today so even if someone saved them they may not even be readable.Books use better paper and ink because they are made to last but newspapers are meant to be read then disgarded. I am not saying this is how it all came to be but admit it could be a legit possibility and would be enough to present the shadow of doubt in a true legal case. I dont really believe that Ron Paul’s belief in civil liberties and the efforts he has made can allow for him to be a racist but I believe he might be prejudice based on someone’s character which I hope everyone should be
December 27th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
So, according to the logic of this flowchart, if anyone hired at Bain capital or the SLC Olympics is a racist, then Mitt Romney is directly rseponsible?
December 27th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
So, let’s get it straight here: people like Romney who is endorsed by bush,…. And Ron Paul is the terrible one?!? Um,… I think those people have lost my and several other rational people’s attention. Mitt is owned. C’mon zombies!!!! Wake upppppppp!!!!
December 28th, 2011 at 8:11 am
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 28th, 2011 at 11:54 am
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 28th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 29th, 2011 at 9:17 am
I had written a story about Ron Paul this morning at The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/12/todays-hatred-links-look-at-candidate.html) and then found your flowchart that I subsequently added linking back to here.
Great job! Is there a way to subscribe to this blog by email?
Mike
December 29th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 29th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 29th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
[...] 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted byRhymes with [...]
December 29th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Ron paul is the man and if you dont think so you must be a gay nigger
December 30th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Simple Logic is simple logic, but this flow diagram is so incorrect it makes me laugh. Lew Rockwell proof read and edited them without Ron Paul proof reading or re-editing them so tell me how this even makes sense the final obligations would have been from the editor. Ron Paul hired Lew to perform for him and obviously he did not and the contract was ended. This implies that one of my co-workers work would be directly tied to me if I were above them and it simply is not true. Simple Logic is simple logic and this does not make sense. This is why editors get fired all the time.
December 30th, 2011 at 10:00 am
[...] place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Race 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
December 31st, 2011 at 1:29 am
It should be noted that Ron Paul was the minority owner of Ron Paul and Associates. Rockwell was the principle owner.
The decision making tree is a little off and based on assumptions.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:53 pm
They were his newsletters. A president is responsible, the guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger and lots of other things. Lots.
Ron Paul couldn’t handle this one thing.
We need someone that can multitask. Ron Paul evidently can not.
OR
He wrote the newsletters.
January 1st, 2012 at 11:11 pm
[...] place *t* with 1 1/3 votes - Race 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:03 pm
[...] place *t* with 1 1/3 votes - Race 4 2012 – The Ron Paul Newsletter Decision Tree submitted by Rhymes with [...]