Long-time Paul Staffer On Ron Paul

[Kathianne]

Gist is Ron Paul isn't racist, but seriously out-of-touch because of his generation. On xenophobia, guilty, his foreign policy is awful. On anti-Semite? No. On Anti-Israel and Israelis? Yes. Pro-Palestinian. Borderline homophobe, again excused on age. Company he keeps? Highly questionable.

I disagree that the newsletters are 'unimportant,' indeed his citations of problems can be seen in those newsletters, including the conspiracies and yes, racism.

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/


Written By : Eric Dondero Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88


I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.


I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.


Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas...

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs...

...

Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.


Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to Ron.


There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.


It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.
Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.


I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.


On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.
It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.


Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.


I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.


There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.


He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.


On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign...

...If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.

[pegwinn]

that he has a following that understands the advantage of his foreign policy.

Unlike a lot of others, I don't believe that he would be a pushover.

He voted to go to Afghanistan. What he didn't vote for was a political nation building operation. I think that a President Paul Military Response would be directed at those he felt we could prove were actually complicit. I think that if a declaration of war wasn't likely he would shame the Congress into it. Either that or cause them to actually issue the letters of marque and reprisal.

His newsletters don't bother me. This is America. In America you are presumed innocent until definitively proven to be guilty. So, Paul doesn't have to prove he isn't a racist. His opposition, which appears to be the media and the GOP plus the Dems must prove he is. So far they haven't convinced me that his denial is a lie.

Ron Paul isn't perfect. But he is far closer to the ideal than anyone of either party that is on the stage right now.

[revelarts]

Kathianne, I have to admit that this seems like a credible dig against Ron Paul, And IF he intends to be that extreme in his U.S. 1st position that could be a a bit heavy handed. However Like many of his other positions he flatly states what he would like to do and then what he would do is modified by the the limits on the presidents powers and the effects of actions that are to jarring. So that he would move in a manner that would be gradual in many cases, based on the circumstances. AND I'd like to see this accusers conections, Is he very pro neo con or pro Zionist, an APIAC member, working for Gingrich now, Got a bone to pick etc..
But Even if Paul did go as Far as this one person thinks Paul would like to go in his foreign policy, He's STILL the president we need Now. based on the TRULY CRAZY, truly kookey Police state and over federalization of the U.S.. and increased presidential powers that have arisen of the past 75 years.
I still Say with Passion. GO RON PAUL.
And to others who worry , i say give him 4 years, let him SHAKE the tree in Washington for real. . Then once people get a feel of what real small gov't ideas look like, then Elect another war monger to attack 3rd world countries and send more young troops over seas to die, be crippled, maimed and crazy for oil..Uh .. I mean faux safety... doh.. I mean "freedom"... koph.. sorry.

Honestly if Ron Paul Isn't elected this round It's going to be a lot harder and take a lot longer before we see anything like what the founders envisioned. I know many of you think I'm way out there but this Federal Gov't is Sooo big and out of touch, and it's only getting bigger and more corrupt the people have lil to no say at this point and the constitution is not seriously relevant to ANY decisions the other candidates or congress or the court decide. to many cops and soldiers think like ConHog that whatever the Gov't says is "constitutional" in their eyes. and obeying the crazy laws isn't enough you BETTER be pleasant about it or the COPS and Soldiers have a tacit and expected right to abuse you becuase THEY don't have to put up Crap from people who don't like the rules or are annoying.

I think Ron Paul has Moved the conversation for many but there are very few in gov't who have applied the principals, it may be a generation before we get close to these ideas taking hold in gov't agian when the younger Paul crowd tries running for office. (if ever)

But hey vote for who you will, they all talk a good game, and end up doing the same big gov't and "who's the new enemy" Crap.
I'll vote for and put up with I don't like about Paul before I see this country take another step toward the fascist globalist croney state it's becoming.
All other questions are completely moot if the gov't is corrupt and doesn't give a damn about the constitution.

[Abbey Marie]

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Unfortunately, these are the 'sexy' issues for which the dumb and dumber crowd actually have an attention span. The foreign policy issues cause their eyes to glaze over.

[jimnyc]

that he has a following that understands the advantage of his foreign policy.

Unlike a lot of others, I don't believe that he would be a pushover.

He voted to go to Afghanistan. What he didn't vote for was a political nation building operation. I think that a President Paul Military Response would be directed at those he felt we could prove were actually complicit. I think that if a declaration of war wasn't likely he would shame the Congress into it. Either that or cause them to actually issue the letters of marque and reprisal.

His newsletters don't bother me. This is America. In America you are presumed innocent until definitively proven to be guilty. So, Paul doesn't have to prove he isn't a racist. His opposition, which appears to be the media and the GOP plus the Dems must prove he is. So far they haven't convinced me that his denial is a lie.

Ron Paul isn't perfect. But he is far closer to the ideal than anyone of either party that is on the stage right now.

He voted to go in after his own team of staffers were ready to bail on him because of his stupid stances.

[revelarts]

curiouser

...."Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said in an emailed response to Hotsheet responding to the column. "He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously."


In the piece (http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/) published by RightWingNews.com, Dondero writes that he is attempting to "set the record straight" about allegations that Paul - ...
This is not the first time the former staffer has publicly gone after Paul. In 2007, he challenged Paul for his congressional seat. ....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57348489-503544/ron-paul-camp-fires-back-at-ex-aide-over-column-on-israel-gays/


But to the general point of Paul's Foreign Policy positions:
Israel doesn't need our troops Netanyahu speaking to congress says we don't need you, "we can defend ourselves"

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Akfs-E9dLEo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

In 1981 when Israel was condemned by nearly everyone in congress for an bombing an Iraqi site except for Ron Paul who defended Israels right to defend itself how it saw fit.


Obama dictate terms to Israel, Ron Paul says That Israel should work out their own boarders we don't need to tell them where there boarders are.



There's this Atlantic Monthly article"
On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul Is More Mainstream Than His Opponents


...Remember when Paul belonged to the minority in Congress that opposed the Iraq War? Now, 62 percent of Americans say fighting the Iraq war was a mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/public-opinion-is-settled-as-iraq-war-concludes/2011/11/03/gIQADF2qsM_blog.html). You know the Republicans who criticized President Obama for presiding over the end of America's military presence in Iraq? Well, like Paul (and unlike Obama) 78 percent of Americans support full withdrawal. And in Afghanistan, another country that Paul wants to leave, two thirds of Americans want to see troop levels reduced (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20115031-503544.html). "Just one in three Americans believe fighting there is the right thing for the U.S. to do," CBS News found, "while 57 percent think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan."

Like Ron Paul, Americans are also overwhelmingly against (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm) bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure. And although I'll bet he wants to cut the Pentagon budget more than the average American does, a majority of the public prefers (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-usa-budget-poll-idUSTRE7286DW20110309) defense cuts to other kinds, and as Rasmussen found (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/48_think_major_cuts_in_defense_spending_won_t_put_ america_at_risk) earlier this year, "Nearly one-half of Americans now think the United States can make major cuts in defense spending without putting the country in danger. They believe even more strongly that there's no risk in cutting way back on what America spends to defend other countries."

Comparing Paul's positions to those of either the American people or foreign-affairs experts in the State Department and academia, it is clear that his views are closer to normal than most of his Republican opponents' (that is to say, closer to normal than everyone but Jon Huntsman). On the biggest, most consequential foreign policy issues, he is averse to war, as are his countrymen. It is only when they are compared to the views of the Washington establishment, where the Washington Post op-ed page, the Weekly Standard, and the American Enterprise Institute are regarded as mainstream institutions, that Paul's foreign-policy views seem like the abnormal ones. ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/on-foreign-policy-ron-paul-is-more-mainstream-than-his-opponents/249081/

On Israel in his own words:
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jcKIsBcEA-8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[jimnyc]

Rev, even you can't defend Paul's racist newsletters, how/why he profited off of them, why he couldn't manage a simple 8 page letter himself and the other questions about this that simply aren't going to go away. Even his own team members were ready to bail on him because of his ridiculous stance regarding Afghanistan. This man can't handle a tiny newsletter without blaming others, and can't work with his own team members - and we're supposed to believe he can run the entire nation? Add in his displeasure of homosexuals, his stance on Israel & the fact that he believed we should have allowed Hitler to do as he pleased - and his vote count will reflect the fact that he is a kook.

[pegwinn]

Rev, even you can't defend Paul's racist newsletters, We don't have to defend them. It's up to someone to PROVE that RP wrote them, or held to those beliefs. Here in the USA we call that innocent until (wait for it) PROVEN guilty.

how/why he profited off of them, As long as we give equal time to the profits Romney made when breaking up other companies. The question is did he also make those profits while simultaniously putting Americans out of work?

why he couldn't manage a simple 8 page letter himself and the other questions about this that simply aren't going to go away. Jimmy, Both you and I have done jobs that were big. Some of those jobs we might have signed off on things we didn't scrutinize because we trusted the people who worked for us. I am willing to bet that the newsletter was one small piece of a large pie that got delegated out. Since you are an honest man, I know you are not going to try and tell me you can't see a small piece getting lost in the shuffle.

Even his own team members were ready to bail on him because of his ridiculous stance regarding Afghanistan. So let them bail. In the end he did vote to go into Afghanistan. So which is more important? That he did the right thing or that his staff alleges he took a minute before doing the right thing?

This man can't handle a tiny newsletter without blaming others, and can't work with his own team members - and we're supposed to believe he can run the entire nation? We've discussed how something as small as that can get lost in the shuffle. Not Perfect but Plausible. But Staff issues? Puhleeeeeeeeze Jimmy. He's been in or around congress longer than some of the interns on his staff have been alive. Saying he can't work with a team is bordering on stupid since it is obvious he has been doing just that for a really long time.

Add in his displeasure of homosexuals, So he is uncomfortable around gays. Big deal. Considering the times he grew up in, gays should be glad he isn't openly hostile. From what I have seen, he's championed liberty on behalf of gays and minorities as much as or more than most.

his stance on Israel Do we have a moral obligation to defend Israel? Nope. Do we have a mutual defense treaty? Nope. Do we use our $$$ to dominate Israel? Yeppers. What does the head of state of Israel think about all this.... I'll refrain from re-posting the video. I guess my question is: Exactly what is or should be the relationship of the USA TO ISRAEL?

& the fact that he believed we should have allowed Hitler to do as he pleased - Dondero alleged Paul told him (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/12/27/Gingrich-Paul-dispute-new-allegations/UPI-74021324976400/?spt=hs&or=tn)... yadablahetc. What independent verification is offered? I do not believe you accept as fact this account without verification.

and his vote count will reflect the fact that he is a kook. What vote count? His record in Congress of not voting for tax increases? Yeah that should piss off so-called small gov republicans everywhere.

Boy I hope he wins Iowa and NH. The entire GOP will melt down and the media outlets will commit suicide. I will laugh and laugh as I drink copious amounts of homebrew.

Life is good.

[jimnyc]

Boy I hope he wins Iowa and NH. The entire GOP will melt down and the media outlets will commit suicide. I will laugh and laugh as I drink copious amounts of homebrew.

Life is good.

Pegwinn, when you reply in the manner you did, it no longer shows up when someone hits "reply with quote" - as you added your reply into mine... anyway...

If you think people need to prove anything about racism and Ron Paul, when they went out ON HIS NEWSLETTER, you're wrong. It's HIS NAME writing the newsletters until HE proves otherwise. This is politics, and voting, not a court of law. He claims it was a "ghostwriter". Why isn't he out there now, and since the day they went out, telling us specifically who it was who wrote them and why? He should have fired whoever wrote them immediately and came clean THEN with specifically who wrote them and tell the press to go ask that person why he wrote them. And I don't care about comparisons, I judge each candidate on their own merits. So I would need answers from RP about how much he profited from these racist newsletters and what was done with the money, but he doesn't think he needs to answer these questions.

What if he did reach the White House. Are we supposed to believe that if something went out on WH letterhead, and it was controversial, that Ron Paul as president would just brush it aside and claim he had delegated something out? Sorry, doesn't work that way, answers would need to be given. You don't allow things to go out on your own letterhead unless the material is vetted as is the writers. Unless, unless, unless - the writer was in fact writing what he was supposed to. Ooops, I guess if I was a politician I would probably go into denial mode too!

As for him not liking homosexuals not being a big deal - I think it is. That's a voting group that is growing. Him not wanting to be near them, or use the same bathrooms as them, could potentially cost him lots of votes.

As for his "vote count" - I'm talking about the final tallies when the elections kick into gear. Watching people get excited about Ron Paul is hilarious, as he will swirl around a little bit and go down the toilet like the kooky turd he is.

[revelarts]

I've addressed most of what you mention Jim , several times.. And I'll cosign most of pegwins above post.
But to your point of Not being able to run a newsletter therefore unable to run the country.
Your implying he's irresponsible.
Ok Jim, the guys a Medical dr.. and has delivered Ump thousand babies, dealt with life and death situations, literally in his hands. And then review the latest unconstitutional laws on a regular basis help raise his own 5 children. Oh and before that he was a flight surgeon. Not the record of an irresponsible person.

Lets find GW Bush's various flight records in the Air Nat'l Guard, we get those yet?
Do you think you could ask GW Bush anything concerning Texas Rangers baseball team while he owned it? And I voted for him, twice.
How about those WMD's you think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld can put their hands on those yet?
that's Irresponsibly, to put it in it's best light. at the cost of Blood and limbs of 1000s of soldiers 100,000s of Iraqis, and they claimed they were paying close attention.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_tFKa2_YBQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f_tFKa2_YBQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Paul has taken moral responsibility for and refuted the offense of the newsletters, Bush takes credit for invading Iraq yet BLAMES others for the bad intel.
You tell me Jim, which actions mark the better leader?

[jimnyc]

You tell me Jim, which actions mark the better leader?

Huh? Last I looked GWB isn't running for office, Ron Paul is. And if he has LEGIT answers to the questions, he should answer them. Why is it so hard to answer the question about profiting from them, or what he did with the money? Why didn't he disavow them immediately? Why didn't he name the writer immediately so that the right person could be attributed to the letters?

You cannot simply explain away what he did by offering OTHER positive things about him. Sure, he has a few good stances, and other quality attributes - but the "lunacy" things that have been coming up about this man for YEARS won't go away, and for good reason. Racist....Truther...Isolationist...Homophobe... - Once those 4 qualities get drilled into the public's eyes and ears via the ads - he's toast. Well, he's toast already, some people, including himself, just don't see it yet. But you can bookmark this post and use it against me down the road if he gets the Presidency. And if you have a dollar and a dream you can win the lottery!! :laugh2:

[pegwinn]

Pegwinn, when you reply in the manner you did, it no longer shows up when someone hits "reply with quote" - as you added your reply into mine... anyway...

My bust Jim. It's been a couple of years (literally) since I last posted on message boards. Times change and I will adjust.


If you think people need to prove anything about racism and Ron Paul, when they went out ON HIS NEWSLETTER, you're wrong. It's HIS NAME writing the newsletters until HE proves otherwise. This is politics, and voting, not a court of law.

Yeah I still think that if you are going to assert something you have to prove it. The only thing proven is that as you said, it went out on his newsletter. It doesn't prove he wrote it or that he actually believed or lived what was written. You are right this is politics, not a court of law. But, for better or worse I choose to adhere to a higher standard. I would hope that people who obviously care about these things we talk about would as well.


Why isn't he out there now, and since the day they went out, telling us specifically who it was who wrote them and why? He should have fired whoever wrote them immediately .... I judge each candidate on their own merits. So I would need answers from RP about how much he profited from these racist newsletters and what was done with the money, but he doesn't think he needs to answer these questions.

I agree that he should have fired the ghostwriter. And we don't know that he didn't. He accepted responsibility for the content, and disavowed it. His public record refutes what the ghostwriter wrote as well. As to the money..... please tell me that you are not one of those people. If he gets a donation from a murderer, that doesn't make him a murderer. I've read a lot of your posts and I know for a fact you are smarter than that.


Ooops, I guess if I was a politician I would probably go into denial mode too!

I actually agree with most of what you're concerned about. However, I am looking at his record from his entire time in the Congress. If this is the skeleton in his closet, then it is a small one.


As for him not liking homosexuals not being a big deal - I think it is. That's a voting group that is growing. Him not wanting to be near them, or use the same bathrooms as them, could potentially cost him lots of votes.

Yep it could. And in the future candidates will have to get past it. Ron Paul is one of the last guys to be in office who was raised to think a certain way. Again, his record and public statements demonstrate to me that he doesn't allow his personal discomfort to get in the way of doing the right thing.


As for his "vote count" - I'm talking about the final tallies ...

You could very well be right. Even with his obvious support on the internet it has to translate into people caring enough to vote. I don't think the general population has the courage yet to embrace the idea of genuine independence from an intrusive government. So, the odds are that Obama will win again because the GOP cannot field a candidate that is worth a damn.

My personal hope is that the people who care enough (left or right) to actually comment on boards, and in the social media, and on the media outlets will continue to scrutinize the message. Unless we literally shrink everything about the government our grandkids will live in a third world country. And so far there is no one, no one at all, in the near term that looks like they are willing to tell the hard truth and at least make a real effort.

[ConHog]

HMMM

"just because it was written in newsletter , doesn't mean he agrees with it" sounds suspiciously like "just because he went to that church for 40 years doesn't mean he agrees with their teachings" to me.

[jimnyc]

I agree that he should have fired the ghostwriter. And we don't know that he didn't. He accepted responsibility for the content, and disavowed it. His public record refutes what the ghostwriter wrote as well. As to the money..... please tell me that you are not one of those people. If he gets a donation from a murderer, that doesn't make him a murderer. I've read a lot of your posts and I know for a fact you are smarter than that.

WHEN did he disavow, WHEN did he fire the writer, WHY won't he release specifics about who wrote them? The public deserves to know specifics in order to make a determination themselves. And I'm not saying he got donations from bad people, I'm saying he profited on Ads that were on his racist newsletters. He DIRECTLY profited off of letterhead that went out, in his name, that were racist.


I actually agree with most of what you're concerned about. However, I am looking at his record from his entire time in the Congress. If this is the skeleton in his closet, then it is a small one.


I assure you, most people won't see racist acts as small, even if it was a long time ago and even if he were to deny. You can think otherwise, but this is exactly why this issue has persisted for this long to begin with. He will be labeled a racist, or racist supporter, until he comes clean with SPECIFICS. If he chooses to let it be where it's at, many will assume he is a racist. The is the thing with politics - the public want answers, and they're entitled to them. Sometimes just saying "I disavow them" is not enough. Just about every criminal in the world denies their conduct when caught, or "disavows" their actions - but that does nothing to change what actually happened.

[jimnyc]

HMMM

"just because it was written in newsletter , doesn't mean he agrees with it" sounds suspiciously like "just because he went to that church for 40 years doesn't mean he agrees with their teachings" to me.

If someone can give me absolute proof that he fired this guy the very next day, then went public within 24hrs of their release - I will change my opinion of the man on the racist issue. Otherwise it simply appears to me that someone is doing some serious damage control for an awfully long time. Anything short of what I requested is WAY too long.

[pegwinn]

HMMM

"just because it was written in newsletter , doesn't mean he agrees with it" sounds suspiciously like "just because he went to that church for 40 years doesn't mean he agrees with their teachings" to me.

That's a great point. The only real difference is that we have no proof he wrote it, lived it etc. Barry went to the church of his own free will. As I mentioned to Jim, I am also looking at actions independent of the thing.

But, the comment was worthy of thanks and rep and all that stuff we do to show that thinking people can disagree while respecting the other guy.

[ConHog]

If someone can give me absolute proof that he fired this guy the very next day, then went public within 24hrs of their release - I will change my opinion of the man on the racist issue. Otherwise it simply appears to me that someone is doing some serious damage control for an awfully long time. Anything short of what I requested is WAY too long.

I think maybe some misread what I wrote, I'm agreeing with you. I have a hard time believing Paul's story.

[jimnyc]

That's a great point. The only real difference is that we have no proof he wrote it, lived it etc.

If letterhead from the WH, on Obama's letterhead, went out and in this newsletter were some shitty things said about Republican leaders - would it be up to the Republicans or the American public to prove that it came from Obama? I'd like to think that if something "foul" went out on his letterhead, and he didn't write it, he would IMMEDIATELY disavow it and IMMEDIATELY take steps to find out who was responsible and IMMEDIATELY identify this person.

[jimnyc]

I think maybe some misread what I wrote, I'm agreeing with you. I have a hard time believing Paul's story.

No, I know what you meant, I just used your reply to ask a question in another manner based off of it. I don't buy Paul's story, nor did I buy Obama's story about his preacher. But there's a big difference between attending a church, and having racist rants going out on your letterhead.

[ConHog]

No, I know what you meant, I just used your reply to ask a question in another manner based off of it. I don't buy Paul's story, nor did I buy Obama's story about his preacher. But there's a big difference between attending a church, and having racist rants going out on your letterhead.

Got ya. But I disagree. I think they are the same.

[jimnyc]

Got ya. But I disagree. I think they are the same.

Well, for starters, Obama didn't make an "alleged" million dollars in profit from his preachers words. And he didn't allow the preachers words to go out on his letterhead as if they were written by himself.

That's another thing - Ron Paul signed these newsletters with the racism. That's odd.

[ConHog]

Well, for starters, Obama didn't make an "alleged" million dollars in profit from his preachers words. And he didn't allow the preachers words to go out on his letterhead as if they were written by himself.

That's another thing - Ron Paul signed these newsletters with the racism. That's odd.

The money is a seperate and inconsequential matter to me. I'm more interested in a man putting himself behind sick words and then lying about it.

[jimnyc]

The money is a seperate and inconsequential matter to me. I'm more interested in a man putting himself behind sick words and then lying about it.

Agreed that they are different matters, but a million dollars off of racism isn't inconsequential. And his signature at the bottom of his own newsletters lends credibility to the belief that he knew all too well about them.

And I say again, once a racist, always a racist. These types of character issues generally stay with a man.

[ConHog]

Agreed that they are different matters, but a million dollars off of racism isn't inconsequential. And his signature at the bottom of his own newsletters lends credibility to the belief that he knew all too well about them.

And I say again, once a racist, always a racist. These types of character issues generally stay with a man.


Untrue. Some people can change. One of my buddies HATED Mexicans until I brought the beaner to party one night, like everyone else he fell in love and now he defends Mexicans after knowing her and her family for 7 years and realizing they are people the same as everyone else.

[jimnyc]

Interesting that RP wants to distance himself from the newsletters, as if he didn't know anything about them, that it was a ghostwriter and he disavows everything in them and had no knowledge of what was written. Well, he knew of them in 1995 while discussing them. did he go out of his way when being interviewed to disavow the content?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_m-RhKBfb2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Btw - in case anyone else is wondering - Ron Paul claims to have not even been aware or read of the controversial newsletters until 2001. Funny how videos come back to haunt and make one look like a liar!

[Kathianne]

Btw - in case anyone else is wondering - Ron Paul claims to have not even been aware or read of the controversial newsletters until 2001. Funny how videos come back to haunt and make one look like a liar!

Certainly is impossible to believe.

He made and paid taxes on over $1M income on those newsletters. While I'm certain his medical practice was successful, one must assume he knew something about the source of that much income.

[jimnyc]

Certainly is impossible to believe.

He made and paid taxes on over $1M income on those newsletters. While I'm certain his medical practice was successful, one must assume he knew something about the source of that much income.

No doubt that he knew. No doubt that he profited. And more and more I'm starting to believe that the words are his beliefs as well. Coming out as a busted liar is going to hurt him now. Only a matter of time before the other candidates start running with these videos and his own words from multiple newspaper interviews back then.

[ConHog]

No doubt that he knew. No doubt that he profited. And more and more I'm starting to believe that the words are his beliefs as well. Coming out as a busted liar is going to hurt him now. Only a matter of time before the other candidates start running with these videos and his own words from multiple newspaper interviews back then.


Doesn't even make sense either, you think he'd be proud and stand tall with his fellow racists. But then again, look at Obama and his church. I mean how is this different?

[pegwinn]

Untrue. Some people can change. One of my buddies HATED Mexicans until I brought the beaner to party one night, like everyone else he fell in love and now he defends Mexicans after knowing her and her family for 7 years and realizing they are people the same as everyone else.

Agreed. I've seen more hard corps racist blacks and whites change in the service. Not all change. And, not all change permanently. But, I have never seen civilians change. Something about being forced to live AND work AND eatsleepshitpartyyadablahetc tends to strip away most of the bullshit.

[jimnyc]

I would agree with younger people there is potential for one to change their views, but I hardly doubt a man that has had 75 years to form an opinion will be changing anytime soon.

[revelarts]

U.S. House on April 20, 1999:
'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

Ron Paul

[revelarts]

I would agree with younger people there is potential for one to change their views, but I hardly doubt a man that has had 75 years to form an opinion will be changing anytime soon.



...Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and the white man who attacked him during a civil rights protest in 1961 came together to accept an award Thursday night.

Lewis and Elwin Wilson received the Common Ground award (http://www.sfcg.org/sfcg/common-ground-awards/20009-awardee-john-lewis-elwin-wilson.html) Thursday at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. The award honors outstanding accomplishments in conflict resolution, negotiation, community building, and peacebuilding.
...

Wilson was part of a mob that attacked Lewis and another Freedom Rider for entering the "Whites Only" waiting area of a bus station in Rock Hill, South Carolina in May 1961. He said he had wanted to apologize for years and was moved to do so by comments he read from black civil rights leaders about President Obama's inauguration. The former segregationist contacted local civil rights activists and realized that Lewis was the young man he had beaten. Wilson went to Lewis's Capitol Hill office to apologize in January (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2009/02/05/apology_john_lewis_beating.html).
Both said at the time that they hoped their story would help others who took part in violence at the time to make amends.
"I said if just one person comes forward and gets the hate out of their heart, it's all worth it," Wilson told the AP. "But I hope there will be a bunch of people. Life's short and we all go to the same place when we die."...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/john-lewis-reunites-with_n_340446.html

[jimnyc]

U.S. House on April 20, 1999:
'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

Ron Paul

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul

[jimnyc]

Hey Rev, why is it you think that Ron Paul later saying something nice about black people somehow negates what he stated earlier about all blacks in general? I don't know his full story in congress - was there ever a time that he wasn't in office since his initial election? Because it would be rather odd if he condemned blacks back in the late 80's and early 90's, only to disavow those statements and return to office in the late 90's. Not sure though, wanna take a stab at filling us in on his time in office, when the newsletters were published, and when he disavowed and/or made statements like you quoted above? Curious minds wanna know!

[ConHog]

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul

Unfortunately in general all 3 of those statements are true. I'm not a racist Jim, but it is what it is.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately in general all 3 of those statements are true. I'm not a racist Jim, but it is what it is.

I doubt statistics will show THAT many blacks being criminals. More than normal, yes.... Anyway, neither you or I are running for office. Neither you or I made over $1 million dollars off of racist views. Neither of us lied about knowing about these newsletters in 2001 only to have video proof that he knew about this crap back in 1994. It's the total of everything that was stated in these newsletters combined with his outright lying about them. Then factor in that he started disavowing them and acknowledging them, and speaking praise about blacks, only after he returned to office. It's obvious he's a lying racist covering his tracks. He doesn't have the character and qualities that "I" would vote for in a president.

[pegwinn]

that I am too personally invested in the ideas of Ron Paul to see clearly and dispassionately. I've been told that my "normally" independent/right/radical leanings have been subverted. The guy I was talking to seems to think I am temporarily insane for supporting Paul since I freely admit that he's not 100% correct.

It's starting to sound like that statement also covers the anti-Pauls, and anti-romneys, and anti-xxxxx in general.

I'm starting to think that the ol boy is more right about people in general after coming back to this forum and USMB among other places. It seems to me that people are worried more about getting rid of Obama than they are voting for someone because that person aligns closer with their core values.

[jimnyc]

that I am too personally invested in the ideas of Ron Paul to see clearly and dispassionately. I've been told that my "normally" independent/right/radical leanings have been subverted. The guy I was talking to seems to think I am temporarily insane for supporting Paul since I freely admit that he's not 100% correct.

It's starting to sound like that statement also covers the anti-Pauls, and anti-romneys, and anti-xxxxx in general.

I'm starting to think that the ol boy is more right about people in general after coming back to this forum and USMB among other places. It seems to me that people are worried more about getting rid of Obama than they are voting for someone because that person aligns closer with their core values.

I can only speak for myself, and my vote won't be simply to get rid of Obama, nor will it simply be the (R) who happens to be in the lead. Every election, I look at candidates individually, on a variety of levels, and decide who best fits a)first one who fits what "I" am looking for in a candidate and b)one who is best for what I think our country needs.

As of yet, I don't see any candidate worthy of being "excited" about.

[Kathianne]

I can only speak for myself, and my vote won't be simply to get rid of Obama, nor will it simply be the (R) who happens to be in the lead. Every election, I look at candidates individually, on a variety of levels, and decide who best fits a)first one who fits what "I" am looking for in a candidate and b)one who is best for what I think our country needs.

As of yet, I don't see any candidate worthy of being "excited" about.

I agree. While I may agree with many of the stands Paul takes, I do look at the person too. Some faults that effect the family that the person claims 'remorse' for I take the attitude of, 'if their family can continue to deal with them I won't hold it against them. Certainly wouldn't hold a divorce against a person. Serial divorces probably tell me less about a candidate than they would as a reference for dating material-they probably have more interests in other things than personal relationships.

With Ron Paul I find the man, not all the issues to be the reason I would NOT vote for him. I do not believe that someone could lend their name to such vile newletters, take the money made off of appealing to the worst impulses of many or awakening those impulses in others, and not disavow the supporters of today, that still are the folks that echo those messages.

His hatred of Israel, voiced in those newsletters and repeated today are but one of his foreign policy stands that I disagree with. Iran getting the bomb is another. Those are positions I disagree with, but it's the man personally that I find unworthy of support.

[pegwinn]

I can only speak for myself, and my vote won't be simply to get rid of Obama, nor will it simply be the (R) who happens to be in the lead. Every election, I look at candidates individually, on a variety of levels, and decide who best fits a)first one who fits what "I" am looking for in a candidate and b)one who is best for what I think our country needs.

As of yet, I don't see any candidate worthy of being "excited" about.

That would be me. I don't agree 100% with any candidate ever. I have some very hard right and very hard left opinions. I have picked the guy that overall has at least a demonstrated record that is closest to my views. If he's elected, just like bush/clinton/obama/reagan/(fill in the blank), the real world in and out of DC is going to twist up his campaign promises. Murphy said that "No plan survives contact with the enemy".


I agree. While I may agree with many of the stands Paul takes, I do look at the person too. Some faults that effect the family that the person claims 'remorse' for I take the attitude of, 'if their family can continue to deal with them I won't hold it against them. Certainly wouldn't hold a divorce against a person. ...

With Ron Paul I find the man, not all the issues to be the reason I would NOT vote for him. I do not believe that someone could lend their name to such vile newletters, take the money made off of appealing to the worst impulses of many or awakening those impulses in others, and not disavow the supporters of today, that still are the folks that echo those messages.

His hatred of Israel, voiced in those newsletters and repeated today are but one of his foreign policy stands that I disagree with. Iran getting the bomb is another. Those are positions I disagree with, but it's the man personally that I find unworthy of support.

Hey Kath. I bolded the part in your quote that strikes a chord. I feel the same way about Newt. His flaws are those of character. And, I've seen nothing to tell me that his fundamental character flaws have been mended. If you cannot trust him to remain faithful to his wife you cannot trust him to remain faithful to the Constitution. Unlike Paul, Newt didn't do anything that even has the appearance of mitigating those flaws. Bottom line is that he's an obvious crook in my view. I can't vote for that.

[revelarts]

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ron Paul


Unfortunately in general all 3 of those statements are true. I'm not a racist Jim, but it is what it is.


I doubt statistics will show THAT many blacks being criminals. More than normal, yes.... Anyway, neither you or I are running for office.
.

Yes they are racist statements and if you believe them you believe what racist believe, though you do not consider yourself full on racist. You do hold racist beliefs, make know mistake.

Fearing Black men "in general" is irrational and racist.

Reinforcing the point that many black men have made recently that many of the people complaining the loudest about Ron Paul being a racist really don't give a rip about racism against blacks personally it's just a something to wedge try to against Paul.

[jimnyc]

Yes they are racist statements and if you believe them you believe what racist believe, though you do not consider yourself full on racist. You do hold racist beliefs, make know mistake.

Fearing Black men "in general" is irrational and racist.

Reinforcing the point that many black men have made recently that many of the people complaining the loudest about Ron Paul being a racist really don't give a rip about racism against blacks personally it's just a something to wedge try to against Paul.

No, it's something that shows a lack of character and class about Ron Paul. You can be a full blown racist with no class whatsoever AND still feel that these aren't qualities you want in your president.

The wedge being driven against Ron Paul are his own words and statements coming back to haunt him.

[Kathianne]

That would be me. I don't agree 100% with any candidate ever. I have some very hard right and very hard left opinions. I have picked the guy that overall has at least a demonstrated record that is closest to my views. If he's elected, just like bush/clinton/obama/reagan/(fill in the blank), the real world in and out of DC is going to twist up his campaign promises. Murphy said that "No plan survives contact with the enemy".



Hey Kath. I bolded the part in your quote that strikes a chord. I feel the same way about Newt. His flaws are those of character. And, I've seen nothing to tell me that his fundamental character flaws have been mended. If you cannot trust him to remain faithful to his wife you cannot trust him to remain faithful to the Constitution. Unlike Paul, Newt didn't do anything that even has the appearance of mitigating those flaws. Bottom line is that he's an obvious crook in my view. I can't vote for that.

Hey, Pegwinn, long time no see! Actually I find the ideological problems worse for me as a citizen, though I've no doubt that Gingrich is not someone I'd want to date. Nope, from everything I've seen, he is a narcissist, as are likely most if not all of the candidates, make that politicians.

Like you I'm pretty conservative on economic issues, thus agree with size of government along the lines of Paul, also am for smallest federal government possible.

However, I'm not a racist, do not feel like there's a war on getting the white man. I'm not xenophobic, indeed I feel that isolationism has always been the US go to position before wars get really hot.

[jimnyc]

Hey Kath. I bolded the part in your quote that strikes a chord. I feel the same way about Newt. His flaws are those of character. And, I've seen nothing to tell me that his fundamental character flaws have been mended. If you cannot trust him to remain faithful to his wife you cannot trust him to remain faithful to the Constitution. Unlike Paul, Newt didn't do anything that even has the appearance of mitigating those flaws. Bottom line is that he's an obvious crook in my view. I can't vote for that.

I too take issue with Newt's character issues coming out of his multiple marriages. I believe it was Gabby who posted an article last week where he supposedly served his Ex with divorce papers while she was in the hospital. I'm leaning towards Romney but my gut inside wishes there were other choices.

[pegwinn]

Fearing Black men "in general" is irrational and racist.


Nope. Like it or not, Stereotypes are a great time saver. IOW they exist because there is enough fact in them to cause an unreasonable inflation.

Actions, not thoughts you didn't act on, determine whether you are an 'ist' of any sort.

[revelarts]

No, it's something that shows a lack of character and class about Ron Paul. You can be a full blown racist with no class whatsoever AND still feel that these aren't qualities you want in your president.

The wedge being driven against Ron Paul are his own words and statements coming back to haunt him.

no it's a wedge being used against him that he isn't even the maker of.
Just As I could assume that You and Con are hard core balled face racist based on the above statements that you DO claim to have written above. IF I wanted to ignore any and all statements you've ever made on the board to the contrary. That might give me a broader view. Even Kathianne posted info from a Ron Paul Frenemy that worked closely with him for years who says Ron Paul isn't a racist but you won't let it go,
but hey whatever Jim.
I'm moving on, consider this the my last post on Ron Paul and race.

GO RON PAUL!!!

[revelarts]

Nope. Like it or not, Stereotypes are a great time saver. IOW they exist because there is enough fact in them to cause an unreasonable inflation.

Actions, not thoughts you didn't act on, determine whether you are an 'ist' of any sort.

maybe this should go in another thread,
the concept of racism/racist is not in the thought but in the act?
I've never heard of the before.
So Thinking People groups are born criminals is not racist but acting on it does? And what exactly constitutes an "act" under this definition: writing, speaking, not dating ,discriminating or violence?
I don't understand what your saying Peg

[jimnyc]

no it's a wedge being used against him that he isn't even the maker of.
Just As I could assume that You and Con are hard core balled face racist based on the above statements that you DO claim to have written above. IF I wanted to ignore any and all statements you've ever made on the board to the contrary. That might give me a broader view. Even Kathianne posted info from a Ron Paul Frenemy that worked closely with him for years who says Ron Paul isn't a racist but you won't let it go,
but hey whatever Jim.
I'm moving on, consider this the my last post on Ron Paul and race.

GO RON PAUL!!!

You can assume all you like about me, I'm not running for office. And your lame announcement is like a little boy yelling when he doesn't get his way - "Waaaaaa, I'm taking my ball home with me too". You think we all should just listen to RP or a few others and dismiss the facts in front of us about the newsletters. Sorry, I don't ignore stone cold proof. If you choose to still want RP in office despite what others think about him on this and other issues, more power to you! But there are MANY who want to know more about him and MANY that are unaware of the newsletters. Let everyone decide for themselves. But you seem to get yourself in a tizzy and get upset when others post the facts and post a differing opinion.

[revelarts]

...Let everyone decide for themselves. ...
agreed

[pegwinn]

maybe this should go in another thread,
the concept of racism/racist is not in the thought but in the act?
I've never heard of the before.
So Thinking People groups are born criminals is not racist but acting on it does? And what exactly constitutes an "act" under this definition: writing, speaking, not dating ,discriminating or violence?
I don't understand what your saying Peg

Being uncomfortable around gays because you do not agree with their lifestyle isn't Homophobic.
Barring gays from a public place is.

Noting that there is a group of loud black kids acting big and bad and avoiding them because it makes you uncomfortable isn't racist.
Seeing that same kid and refusing to hire him solely because he's black is.

Believing that women sleep their way to the top isn't sexist,
expecting one to sleep with you to get a promotion is.

None of us is perfect. What makes us exceptional is the ability to get beyond our hangups and do the right thing.

Hope that helps.

[ConHog]

I doubt statistics will show THAT many blacks being criminals. More than normal, yes.... Anyway, neither you or I are running for office. Neither you or I made over $1 million dollars off of racist views. Neither of us lied about knowing about these newsletters in 2001 only to have video proof that he knew about this crap back in 1994. It's the total of everything that was stated in these newsletters combined with his outright lying about them. Then factor in that he started disavowing them and acknowledging them, and speaking praise about blacks, only after he returned to office. It's obvious he's a lying racist covering his tracks. He doesn't have the character and qualities that "I" would vote for in a president.

I agree with you.

I wish you luck in finding a presidential nominee who actually deserves your vote.

[revelarts]

Being uncomfortable around gays because you do not agree with their lifestyle isn't Homophobic.
Barring gays from a public place is.

Noting that there is a group of loud black kids acting big and bad and avoiding them because it makes you uncomfortable isn't racist.
Seeing that same kid and refusing to hire him solely because he's black is.

Believing that women sleep their way to the top isn't sexist,
expecting one to sleep with you to get a promotion is.

None of us is perfect. What makes us exceptional is the ability to get beyond our hangups and do the right thing.

Hope that helps.
"None of us is perfect." we're not even close my friend. And I do see where your coming from But I still think a sexist thought is a sexist thought and if it's our default belief that we feel no need to correct we are sexist. Even if we never commit an overt act that reveals it. We shouldn't give our imperfect thoughts a pass to hang around when we can learn to think more inline with reality. Sow a thought reap and act...

[ConHog]

"None of us is perfect." we're not even close my friend. And I do see where your coming from But I still think a sexist thought is a sexist thought and if it's our default belief that we feel no need to correct we are sexist. Even if we never commit an overt act that reveals it. We shouldn't give our imperfect thoughts a pass to hang around when we can learn to think more inline with reality. Sow a thought reap and act...

Everyone is a bigot and or sexist to some extent. It's just a matter of degree.

[Kathianne]

Nope. Like it or not, Stereotypes are a great time saver. IOW they exist because there is enough fact in them to cause an unreasonable inflation.

Actions, not thoughts you didn't act on, determine whether you are an 'ist' of any sort.

I agree. I think the way it was put was a bit racist, leaving off further generalization or stereotyping. I'd say in general that it's commonsense for a person alone to avoid a gathering of young men or even young people. Most wouldn't harm you, but it happens with much more frequency than a gathering of young children, matured adults, or seniors of one or both sexes.

I think it was you, Phil who said they were for using profiling with TSA, me too. Not exclusively mind you, but with some training in body language and other factors. Take what the Israelis have done and use what is possible with large population.

[ConHog]

I agree. I think the way it was put was a bit racist, leaving off further generalization or stereotyping. I'd say in general that it's commonsense for a person alone to avoid a gathering of young men or even young people. Most wouldn't harm you, but it happens with much more frequency than a gathering of young children, matured adults, or seniors of one or both sexes.

I think it was you, Phil who said they were for using profiling with TSA, me too. Not exclusively mind you, but with some training in body language and other factors. Take what the Israelis have done and use what is possible with large population.

Brings me back to my question. Why is it apparently suddenly not okay to profile a crime in which Arabs are the most likely criminal?

[Kathianne]

Brings me back to my question. Why is it apparently suddenly not okay to profile a crime in which Arabs are the most likely criminal?

I've never said differently since before 9/11. Reality is though the real culprit for most terrorism threats today is radical Islam, which may have a high percentage of Arabs, but also a high percentage of those that have been in US and European prisons, European ghettos, etc., thus my addendum of body language and other factors.

[ConHog]

I've never said differently since before 9/11. Reality is though the real culprit for most terrorism threats today is radical Islam, which may have a high percentage of Arabs, but also a high percentage of those that have been in US and European prisons, European ghettos, etc., thus my addendum of body language and other factors.

Personally I think every security checkpoint should have a trained Secret Service agent in place. An X ray and a few questions by those sneaky bastards and we would know what we needed to know. They are AMAZING at detecting lies and or deceit.

[Kathianne]

Personally I think every security checkpoint should have a trained Secret Service agent in place. An X ray and a few questions by those sneaky bastards and we would know what we needed to know. They are AMAZING at detecting lies and or deceit.

Well, other than that has 0 to do with their mission, certainly beyond their resources, your point is noted.

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq8


MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events.



How many people are employed by the Secret Service? The Secret Service employs approximately 3,200 special agents, 1,300 Uniformed Division officers, and more than 2,000 other technical, professional and administrative support personnel.

[ConHog]

Well, other than that has 0 to do with their mission, certainly beyond their resources, your point is noted.

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq8

Right, which goes to my point in an earlier thread. I'm not Pro TSA, I'm pro the government being in charge of screening. I think a single Secret Service could accomplish what 5 current TSA agents do. Add K9 units and we have a winner.

[Kathianne]

Right, which goes to my point in an earlier thread. I'm not Pro TSA, I'm pro the government being in charge of screening. I think a single Secret Service could accomplish what 5 current TSA agents do. Add K9 units and we have a winner.

Yep, pro government you certainly are. In this case taking an effective and necessary federal agency and hoping to install it in a loser position. Sounds like the government indeed.

[ConHog]

Yep, pro government you certainly are. In this case taking an effective and necessary federal agency and hoping to install it in a loser position. Sounds like the government indeed.

No, I'm anti government in many areas. I'm pro government provided airport security. Those aren't the same things.

and the airport screening doesn't have to be a loser position if done correctly.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm anti government in many areas. I'm pro government provided airport security. Those aren't the same things.

and the airport screening doesn't have to be a loser position if done correctly.

Huh? I thought in the main, according to you, it was being done correctly. The problem was those conspiring to bring them down, like the bitch grandma whose ass should be in jail.

[pegwinn]

I'm all for public surveillance, profiling, and an armed populace. I get that carrying a cut down shotgun on an aircraft isn't the smartest thing also. But, like shopping malls that seem to attract an inordinate number of shooters in spite of the "no guns in here" rule, the owner of the aircraft should bear the responsibility of safeguarding the passengers and cargo.

I wonder if TSA could be outsourced to private companies. The job creation would be good. The lack of standardization might actually be a barrier to someone casing the joint as it were. The better airlines get a new level of advertising for safety and security.

And, since TSA is suddenly patrolling our highways perhaps it would remove a bit of the "big brother" fears that are becoming more common.

[Kathianne]

I'm all for public surveillance, profiling, and an armed populace. I get that carrying a cut down shotgun on an aircraft isn't the smartest thing also. But, like shopping malls that seem to attract an inordinate number of shooters in spite of the "no guns in here" rule, the owner of the aircraft should bear the responsibility of safeguarding the passengers and cargo.

I wonder if TSA could be outsourced to private companies. The job creation would be good. The lack of standardization might actually be a barrier to someone casing the joint as it were. The better airlines get a new level of advertising for safety and security.

And, since TSA is suddenly patrolling our highways perhaps it would remove a bit of the "big brother" fears that are becoming more common.

I'm only for court or legislative justified public surveillance. The justification for cameras at schools, water treatment plants, public transportation such as RR and subways and the like, aimed at public access ATM's, bank doors, etc. Red lights and other public surveillance? Not so much. There has to be reasons.

Profiling? Yes, but make the profiling meaningful. Not just Arabs, but at least regarding TSA, Islam and convicts. Also those that meet some criteria of 'skin heads' or other radicals. Train and identify. Then if the stats on 'random' make sense, fine. Do so. But make the process fit the potential.

[ConHog]

Huh? I thought in the main, according to you, it was being done correctly. The problem was those conspiring to bring them down, like the bitch grandma whose ass should be in jail.

No, according to men they are in the main being done in accordance with written TSA policy and within the confines of the COTUS. That doesn't mean what they are doing is the BEST option. Nor have I ever said it was.

[Kathianne]

no, according to men they are in the main being done in accordance with written tsa policy and within the confines of the cotus. That doesn't mean what they are doing is the best option. Nor have i ever said it was.

wtf?

[ConHog]

wtf?

ugh pardon the typo. Clearly I meant according to ME, not according to MEN. I don't claim to speak for all of manhood.

[Kathianne]

No, according to men they are in the main being done in accordance with written TSA policy and within the confines of the COTUS. That doesn't mean what they are doing is the BEST option. Nor have I ever said it was.

However you've gone beyond implying that what they are doing should be acceptable, in fact 95% of those complaining are just trying to cause problems for a variety of reasons. The small percentage, according to you should be investigated. However, over and over again, the complaining people are having their complaints 'investigated' and over and over again, the parameters are changing.

We're over a decade in, complaints should now be few and the process should be stable. They're not.

[ConHog]

However you've gone beyond implying that what they are doing should be acceptable, in fact 95% of those complaining are just trying to cause problems for a variety of reasons. The small percentage, according to you should be investigated. However, over and over again, the complaining people are having their complaints 'investigated' and over and over again, the parameters are changing.

We're over a decade in, complaints should now be few and the process should be stable. They're not.


I disagree with this statement. I think percentage wise the number is low. However as with anything else there is always room for improvement.

[pegwinn]

I'm only for court or legislative justified public surveillance. The justification for cameras at schools, water treatment plants, public transportation such as RR and subways and the like, aimed at public access ATM's, bank doors, etc. Red lights and other public surveillance? Not so much. There has to be reasons.

Profiling? Yes, but make the profiling meaningful. Not just Arabs, but at least regarding TSA, Islam and convicts. Also those that meet some criteria of 'skin heads' or other radicals. Train and identify. Then if the stats on 'random' make sense, fine. Do so. But make the process fit the potential.

Surveillance doesn't bother me at all. I figure that if a random person can see or overhear me then there is no expectation of privacy. So red light cameras are fine with me as well as street corner cameras. I see it as freeing up a cop to be available when or if needed instead of hiding behind a billboard trying to catch speeders. Likewise any and all government funded public access areas like schools. I only expect to be truly private on my own property. And of course private property like the mall or theater can do as they please. My presence there indicates acceptance of terms.

Locally we had red light cameras. People lost their mind over "privacy" concerns. I opposed it because the cops were not using them. If a cop wrote a red light ticket the fine was 80 bux. If a camera caught you it was like 30. Half of that went to the camera company. So, it was an obvious revenue scam for the city. It came to a head because the city painted it as a 'safety" issue and other studies showed that increased yellow times lowered the number of accidents and red light runs.

I'm not any sort of law enforcement expert. So, when I say "profiling" i am talking about taking every airport, or bus station, or train station crime and compiling the stats for form a picture of the "average" perpetrator. Then, we scrutinize the average perp 100% of the time. In and among all of that we also randomly check people who make partial hits on the profile of the average perp.

[ConHog]

Surveillance doesn't bother me at all. I figure that if a random person can see or overhear me then there is no expectation of privacy. So red light cameras are fine with me as well as street corner cameras. I see it as freeing up a cop to be available when or if needed instead of hiding behind a billboard trying to catch speeders. Likewise any and all government funded public access areas like schools. I only expect to be truly private on my own property. And of course private property like the mall or theater can do as they please. My presence there indicates acceptance of terms.

Locally we had red light cameras. People lost their mind over "privacy" concerns. I opposed it because the cops were not using them. If a cop wrote a red light ticket the fine was 80 bux. If a camera caught you it was like 30. Half of that went to the camera company. So, it was an obvious revenue scam for the city. It came to a head because the city painted it as a 'safety" issue and other studies showed that increased yellow times lowered the number of accidents and red light runs.

I'm not any sort of law enforcement expert. So, when I say "profiling" i am talking about taking every airport, or bus station, or train station crime and compiling the stats for form a picture of the "average" perpetrator. Then, we scrutinize the average perp 100% of the time. In and among all of that we also randomly check people who make partial hits on the profile of the average perp.


Essentially that is what profiling is in terms of law enforcement. It boils down to identifying your most likely perpetrator for a given crime and concentrating your efforts on people who fit those particulars.