Ron Paul-his responses at last night's debate


Backlighting

Recommended Posts

This open letter to Lew Rockwell, by Ron Paul's former chief of staff, was just posted on my Facebook wall. It begins with a comment by the poster:

"The identity of the author of the newsletters has long been known, as several of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff have identified him. Here is one. Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins"

... Dear Lew, You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time. This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands. Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable. If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message. You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago. John Robbins, Ph.D. Chief of Staff Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Color-Ron-Paul-2012-WEB.jpg

One more reason Paul will not be on the GOP ticket, either as President or Veep.

The value of Ron Paul's campaign is to bring up issues and viewpoints that would otherwise be untouchable or simply untouched or explicated on. It's all about the future. As for him being President, he would either be mostly ineffective or a disaster and a one-termer issuing in another age of Democrats lasting generations.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This open letter to Lew Rockwell, by Ron Paul's former chief of staff, was just posted on my Facebook wall. It begins with a comment by the poster:

"The identity of the author of the newsletters has long been known, as several of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff have identified him. Here is one. Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins"

... Dear Lew, You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time. This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands. Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable. If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message. You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago. John Robbins, Ph.D. Chief of Staff Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985"

George:

This is the raw tape from CNN's interview which clearly illustrates how incredibly corrupted the American State Media is in it's reporting. Not a surprise to many, but it is interesting that this comes out from across the pond where we still see outbreaks of actual journalism.

So, here is another random act of journalism:

Reports that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stormed out of a CNN interview earlier this week seem to be dramatically over-exaggerated.
Raw footage of the Thursday interview shows that it lasted nearly ten minutes, which is not unusually brief on the campaign trail.
After discussing foreign policy, the payroll tax, negative advertisements, and super fund PACs, the interview concluded with three whole minutes of discussion on the issue of the incendiary racist and homophobic letters that were published in Mr Paul's name in the Eighties and Nineties.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1hZkr1ybc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This open letter to Lew Rockwell, by Ron Paul's former chief of staff, was just posted on my Facebook wall. It begins with a comment by the poster:

"The identity of the author of the newsletters has long been known, as several of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff have identified him. Here is one. Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins"

... Dear Lew, You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time. This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands. Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable. If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message. You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago. John Robbins, Ph.D. Chief of Staff Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985"

This open letter to Lew Rockwell, by Ron Paul's former chief of staff, was just posted on my Facebook wall. It begins with a comment by the poster:

"The identity of the author of the newsletters has long been known, as several of Ron Paul's chiefs of staff have identified him. Here is one. Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins"

...

So what? Paul can't have it both ways. He raked in the donations from the racists and conspiracy theorists because of the ravings (written in the first person) under his name. Sure, he never promised the crazies anything. But the scandal is his to own, and his hands will never be clean of it, nor should they be.

The newsletters also contained various pronouncements ostensibly by Paul "based on my training as a physician." such as, the HIV-infected should not eat in restaurants, as AIDS is transmitted by saliva. Is Rockwell an MD also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was not "dumb" or inattentive for 10+ years, about the written material which was a big source of his income. He is lying now, that is spinning, as a politician does. If he isn't , he is far too dumb to run a Chuck-E_Cheese franchise, let alone the United States government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was not "dumb" or inattentive for 10+ years, about the written material which was a big source of his income. He is lying now, that is spinning, as a politician does. If he isn't , he is far too dumb to run a Chuck-E_Cheese franchise, let alone the United States government.

"...the written material which was a big source of his income." And of course, you have his income and the amount derived from the newsletter handy for all of us to see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was not "dumb" or inattentive for 10+ years, about the written material which was a big source of his income. He is lying now, that is spinning, as a politician does. If he isn't , he is far too dumb to run a Chuck-E_Cheese franchise, let alone the United States government.

"...the written material which was a big source of his income." And of course, you have his income and the amount derived from the newsletter handy for all of us to see?

My source is you, Post #21 above in this thread.

Carol

Second hander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was not "dumb" or inattentive for 10+ years, about the written material which was a big source of his income. He is lying now, that is spinning, as a politician does. If he isn't , he is far too dumb to run a Chuck-E_Cheese franchise, let alone the United States government.

"...the written material which was a big source of his income." And of course, you have his income and the amount derived from the newsletter handy for all of us to see?

My source is you, Post #21 above in this thread.

Carol

Second hander

"One issue is that Dr. Paul raised over one million [$1, 000, 000] dollars through subscriptions."

I should have clarified this. I thought the use of the word issue made it debateable.

Secondly, over a period of ten (10) or fifteen (15) years, minus costs, it does not amount to much.

My error. I should have put in allegedly. Very sloppy on my part. Also, assuming that he "...stormed off CNN's interview..." without having viewed the interview was shoddy on my part. A weak moment.

Mea Culpa.

At least I did not assume that he personally got the money, nor whether it amounted to a "...big source of his income."

Adam

contriteness sucks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was not "dumb" or inattentive for 10+ years, about the written material which was a big source of his income. He is lying now, that is spinning, as a politician does. If he isn't , he is far too dumb to run a Chuck-E_Cheese franchise, let alone the United States government.

"...the written material which was a big source of his income." And of course, you have his income and the amount derived from the newsletter handy for all of us to see?

My source is you, Post #21 above in this thread.

Carol

Second hander

"One issue is that Dr. Paul raised over one million [$1, 000, 000] dollars through subscriptions."

I should have clarified this. I thought the use of the word issue made it debateable.

Secondly, over a period of ten (10) or fifteen (15) years, minus costs, it does not amount to much.

My error. I should have put in allegedly. Very sloppy on my part. Also, assuming that he "...stormed off CNN's interview..." without having viewed the interview was shoddy on my part. A weak moment.

Mea Culpa.

At least I did not assume that he personally got the money, nor whether it amounted to a "...big source of his income."

Adam

contriteness sucks!

You are forgiven, my son. Three Hail Aynds. Go forth and sin no more.

The storming off is a nonissue (he clearly didn't) and the antiPaulists would be foolish to push it. Donations are more serious. I think RP has said himself that a significant source of donations was the mailing list of a controversial racist type organization but I forget what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin no more...that's no fun!

I reject that solution!

Furthermore, as I understand this confession business, I can go out and sin the week away and then come into that weird little booth with the funky screens and be absolved.

So, I will take that blank check to work for the new week and start to get in punched by the girls in the secretarial pool which is really a hot tub on the premises.

Did I mention I work out of the house?

Adam

a tabla raza sinner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – From John Robbins"

George,

As an aside, this is the same guy who wrote Without a Prayer, a book criticizing Ayn Rand's philosophy from a religious view and claiming that she actually did believe in God. (I know you already know that. I'm only mentioning it for readers who do not know.)

I read that book back during the SoloHQ days, trying to get into the spirit of defending Rand's honor (which was how that site rolled), but Robbins asked too many good questions for me to put on my Don Quixote armor. It is a very uneven work, but a great source of premises that need to be checked if you want to go deep into Objectivism and not just sing the party line. Lots of good questions to mull over.

My comments at the time--actually on RoR since SoloHQ had morphed by then, saying that the book deserved attention, were not well received, but what else is new? :smile:

The weirdest thing about Without a Prayer is the praise from Ron Paul published on it.

"John Robbins is as stalwart a defender of a free society as I have known. His love of freedom—religious, political, and economic—motivated him to write Without a Prayer, a brilliantly insightful analysis of Ayn Rand's influential philosophy. Without a Prayer deserves to be read by everyone who loves freedom—everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted. Robbins furnishes the indispensable ideas—the intellectual ammunition—required to defend freedom successfully.

Ron Paul (R-TX)

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C."

Love of freedom motivated Robbins to write that book?

Heh.

The fact is that it simply has nothing at all to do with freedom. No discussion of freedom. I would be surprised to open it and find the word "freedom" anywhere in it. Ron Paul's praise is so frigging political, it's actually funny.

Anyway, here is a discussion of the book on an old thread here on OL: John Robbins - Without a Prayer

That thread has quotes from RoR and some reviews by others for anyone interested.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin no more...that's no fun!

I reject that solution!

Furthermore, as I understand this confession business, I can go out and sin the week away and then come into that weird little booth with the funky screens and be absolved.

So, I will take that blank check to work for the new week and start to get in punched by the girls in the secretarial pool which is really a hot tub on the premises.

Did I mention I work out of the house?

Adam

a tabla raza sinner

Oh, the frailty of man.

Just make sure the weird booth with the funky screens is the one in the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.c...n&v=6cNG8Cj0Upw

Is all the hate towards Ron Paul's foreign policy necessarily justified?

Michael Scheuer, is a significant endorsement as far as I am concerned. I admire his knowledge and approach to the world problems that we face.

Impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.c...n&v=6cNG8Cj0Upw

Is all the hate towards Ron Paul's foreign policy necessarily justified?

Michael Scheuer, is a significant endorsement as far as I am concerned. I admire his knowledge and approach to the world problems that we face.

Impressive.

I am impressed and surprised. Intuitively I should think Ron Paul would be a very bad Commander In Chief of the military.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuitively I should think Ron Paul would be a very bad Commander In Chief of the military.

Something tells me the opposite. I think that if our borders were attacked, he would be rabid in employing the military. But his foreign policy stance would see that our approach was more tactful, strategic.

I'm reminded of a few shows I've seen recently that wrongly portray the highest echelons of the military as being warmongers, constantly leveraging towards pushing red buttons and pulling triggers. These four-star generals are constantly thinking of one thing... the men and women they might have to put in harm's way. Every decision bears that in mind at the forefront. I would think Ron Paul would mesh well with his common sense approach, personally.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Intuitively I should think Ron Paul would be a very bad Commander In Chief of the military.

Something tells me the opposite. I think that if our borders were attacked, he would be rabid in employing the military. But his foreign policy stance would see that our approach was more tactful, strategic.

I'm reminded of a few shows I've seen recently that wrongly portray the highest echelons of the military as being warmongers, constantly leveraging towards pushing red buttons and pulling triggers. These four-star generals are constantly thinking of one thing... the men and women they might have to put in harm's way. Every decision bears that in mind at the forefront. I would think Ron Paul would mesh well with his common sense approach, personally.

~ Shane

Shane, that reminds me of an American general I saw portrayed in a TV movie whose name I have forgotten. It was about the Iraq war leadup from the perspective of British envoys to Washington, very funny. Anyone recognize it? I think Michael Sheen was init.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuitively I should think Ron Paul would be a very bad Commander In Chief of the military.

Something tells me the opposite. I think that if our borders were attacked, he would be rabid in employing the military. But his foreign policy stance would see that our approach was more tactful, strategic.

I'm reminded of a few shows I've seen recently that wrongly portray the highest echelons of the military as being warmongers, constantly leveraging towards pushing red buttons and pulling triggers. These four-star generals are constantly thinking of one thing... the men and women they might have to put in harm's way. Every decision bears that in mind at the forefront. I would think Ron Paul would mesh well with his common sense approach, personally.

~ Shane

Shane, that reminds me of an American general I saw portrayed in a TV movie whose name I have forgotten. It was about the Iraq war leadup from the perspective of British envoys to Washington, very funny. Anyone recognize it? I think Michael Sheen was init.

Carol: This might be it...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Special_Relationship_%28film%29

The Special Relationship is a 2010 American-British political film directed by Richard Loncraine from a screenplay by Peter Morgan. It is the third film in Morgan's informal "Blair trilogy", which dramatizes the political career of British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997–2007), following The Deal (2003) and The Queen (2006), both directed by Stephen Frears.

The first drafts of The Special Relationship dealt with Blair's special relationships with U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. However, Morgan excluded the Bush scenes from subsequent drafts (thus ending the narrative on January 20, 2001) because he found the Blair/Clinton dynamic more interesting. Morgan intended to make his directorial debut with the film but backed out a month before filming began and was replaced by Loncraine. The film was produced by Rainmark Films and backed by HBO Films and BBC Films.

The film stars Michael Sheen reprising his role as Blair, Dennis Quaid as Clinton, Hope Davis as Hillary Clinton, and Helen McCrory as Cherie Blair. Principal photography on locations in and around London, England ran from July 20 to September 4, 2009. The film was broadcast on HBO in the United States and Canada on May 29, 2010, and was broadcast on BBC Two and BBC HD in the United Kingdom on September 18, 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuitively I should think Ron Paul would be a very bad Commander In Chief of the military.

Something tells me the opposite. I think that if our borders were attacked, he would be rabid in employing the military. But his foreign policy stance would see that our approach was more tactful, strategic.

I'm reminded of a few shows I've seen recently that wrongly portray the highest echelons of the military as being warmongers, constantly leveraging towards pushing red buttons and pulling triggers. These four-star generals are constantly thinking of one thing... the men and women they might have to put in harm's way. Every decision bears that in mind at the forefront. I would think Ron Paul would mesh well with his common sense approach, personally.

~ Shane

Shane, that reminds me of an American general I saw portrayed in a TV movie whose name I have forgotten. It was about the Iraq war leadup from the perspective of British envoys to Washington, very funny. Anyone recognize it? I think Michael Sheen was init.

Carol: This might be it...http://en.wikipedia....ship_%28film%29

The Special Relationship is a 2010 American-British political film directed by Richard Loncraine from a screenplay by Peter Morgan. It is the third film in Morgan's informal "Blair trilogy", which dramatizes the political career of British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997–2007), following The Deal (2003) and The Queen (2006), both directed by Stephen Frears.

The first drafts of The Special Relationship dealt with Blair's special relationships with U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. However, Morgan excluded the Bush scenes from subsequent drafts (thus ending the narrative on January 20, 2001) because he found the Blair/Clinton dynamic more interesting. Morgan intended to make his directorial debut with the film but backed out a month before filming began and was replaced by Loncraine. The film was produced by Rainmark Films and backed by HBO Films and BBC Films.

The film stars Michael Sheen reprising his role as Blair, Dennis Quaid as Clinton, Hope Davis as Hillary Clinton, and Helen McCrory as Cherie Blair. Principal photography on locations in and around London, England ran from July 20 to September 4, 2009. The film was broadcast on HBO in the United States and Canada on May 29, 2010, and was broadcast on BBC Two and BBC HD in the United Kingdom on September 18, 2010.

That's it! You are brilliant Adam. I remember the general explaining the motiviations of generals, in terms of conserving soldiers' lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on RP: His anti-foreign intervention stance is well known, but I have not come across anything he has said about foreign aid, As a Rand fan I would expect he's against it, but he's supposed to be a Christian, what is his policy? Does he just expect private charities to take over aid to foreign countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on RP: His anti-foreign intervention stance is well known, but I have not come across anything he has said about foreign aid, As a Rand fan I would expect he's against it, but he's supposed to be a Christian, what is his policy? Does he just expect private charities to take over aid to foreign countries?

You can hear it in his own words in the video, but Dr. Paul would cut all foreign aid, "even to Israel!"

“That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us…They should have their sovereignty back,” Paul reasoned.

“To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places…We have an empire. We can’t afford it,” Paul asserted.

I agree and this would be a great start. Then only countries that are on our side would get any aid and it would have large strings attached.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-would-cut-all-foreign-aid-even-to-israel/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now