Originally Posted by
vmarks 
Is sounds to me just like what he said here:
YouTube - Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 1)
YouTube - Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 2)
That it was a small office with many people coming and going and he really doesn't
know anything about those specific issues nor who wrote them. I think the most that
can be said bout Ron at this point is that he wasn't mindful of super tiny publication
in his busy schedule at the time(s). And maybe you could also stretch it (ALLOT!) and
claim that he has indirect association with a racist person or people - and that's really
saying nothing at all. Hehe I have indirect associations with thieves because I own a
CD shop the manager of which hired someone that stole $100.00 from the register.
It's about the same relation here.
They're an honest rag. So they aren't playing favorites either way as is obvious. Now
whoever dug this up and got them to run with it needs to be looked at IMO.
They end the article by saying "Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."
And he hasn't made that acknowledgment.
Yeah, that's what they said and I see you tend to follow along. I tend to disagree. If
these are even genuine which remains to be proven at this point, why on Earth should
he have to stop his campaigning or take a major chunk of time out to investigate an
issue that has nothing to do with what he stands for and has stood for for at least
30 years. I've personally known of him and his record for over 20 years and I can
tell you that's just not what he's about. If he does this thing that you expect of him
then there will be a next and next smear that is BS too and he'll never get his message
out - which would be a real shame because in just a few short years there won't be
an America any more.
This stuff isn't ancient history, it's the 1990s. If Lew Rockwell wrote it (as many people suggest), then Rockwell is a bigot. Rockwell is still close to Paul, appearing with him frequently. If Paul hasn't disassociated himself from Rockwell, it's fair to say Rockwell will continue advising him into a Presidency. If Paul himself isn't a bigot, but allows bigotry to be published under his name and takes advice from bigots, is Paul the President we want?
Even if all that were true which it obviously isn't, I would still vote for Ron Paul! It's
Ron or Hillary (there is no other candidate that THEY will put in office - THEY are
going with Hillary. Well, the Clintons are murders who have put out hits on 100s
of individual Americans who opposed them. Hillary is anti-gun, pro Iraq AND Iran
war, for amnesty, is in the CFR, and WILL both declare a Martial Law AND remove
the sovereignty of this nation. So it's either Ron with his news letter or Hillary with
with her guns pointed at me and my family, her FORCED medical care package,
her either nuking Iran or reinstating the draft to invade it, and her Marxist ideals
as she turns us over to the Global [bankers] Government.
I'll check it out but so far you've not been able to think very clearly and are rather
uninformed about the REAL state of politics in the USA, how politics work, and what
you're doing by not going for a Ron Paul support position. I was saying 4 months
ago that "THEY" wanted a race between McCain and Hillary so Hillary can win easily.
Here's a quote from someone who I know worked there and who is now here in Asia
working at an English school:
"Back in the 80s, I worked at one of the groups that Ron Paul had allowed to
use his name. There were more than 6 other groups using his name as well.
There were numerous writers putting out articles, direct mail and answering
letters under Ron Paul's, and other politicians names.
Even the president of the group didn't review all the material, and almost none
of it was ever sent on to Ron Paul's congressional office.
There was no way Ron Paul could have reviewed everything published under his
name. Even the editor of a major Newspaper doesn't read every item prior to
publication, let alone the publisher.
These items were written by one of the dozens of people who wrote under Ron
Paul's name for at least 8 different groups, that I know of.
Ron Paul has acted responsibly by rejecting and repudiating the racist comments
once he was made aware of them. That's the best anyone could do."
.
.
I obviously can't tell you or anyone who to vote for but I can tell you what will very
likely happen if there's no opposition to Hillary. And currently there is none. Obama
will probably join forces with Hillary in the months to come so that's not a consideration
either.
Top