Here is what Ed Crane himself says about Ron Paul and the letters. No mention of the Post's assertions.

And here is what Dr Joseph Salerno says in reply.

From this we read that Crane and Rothbard fell out. Since Lew Rockwell and Rothbard were so close, one could reasonably presume that Crane and Rockwell fell out too. Crane is disdainful of Ron Paul's loyalty to Rockwell in his article above. He attributes those writings to Rockwell who denies this and says they are the work of freelance writers employed during that time. Crane does not state that Ron Paul knew of them; rather he states that they are not the views of Ron Paul and confirms Ron Paul's disavowal of their content. The article by Salerno in response to Crane's article does not speak well of this Mr Ed Crane but very approvingly of Ron Paul.

I hope that this sheds some light on the characters of these men for you, Michael. And thus some doubt on the alleged assertions by Crane in the Post as copied by Raw Story.

By the way, I also apologise to you for hurting your feelings believing I was assassinating your character because you don't agree with me that Ron Paul is an honest man. I didn't mean to assassinate your character at all. I wrote what I wrote because (a) you say I am evading your questions but I thought I had answered the one about the three so called witnesses - probably not as well as you had hoped but I currently have a very sick child for the last three days who had symptoms of meningitis but which have now, subsequent to a trip to his doctor, dissolved only to tonsilitis and antibiotics and so I was being constantly interrupted! I can't answer the one about the editorship because I don't have the copies of his newsletters over the 20 year period; nor do I have the dates of the Newsletters you posted and I have a theory about these but which I can't test unless I have the dated Newsletters. (b) I thought you were unfair in your statements about Dondero and me. Initially, I quoted Dondero just as you said because you asked me to find some public statements where Rockwell and Paul disagreed. This task I did very quickly without even knowing who Dondero was. It was only after Richard said, "Who is Eric Dondero?" I bothered to even look him up. When I learned that he was a disgruntled, fired ex-employee, this did not affect the reliability of the public statement of disagreement btw P and R regarding the Afghanistan vote. It did, however, affect the reliability of some of the other assertions he made which we were discussing. (c) I also thought it unfair that you brought up the subject of Creation, yet when I responded with a very interesting video you seemed to turn it against me as though I had brought this subject in to the thread and said some extraordinary things that were unjust. (d) Then there was the initial business of bringing Rockwell in to the equation and suddenly taking the conversation off on a tangent of which I have no particular knowledge or interest and did not wish to follow and was chastised for not spending hours getting to the bottom of it and accused therefore of evasion again! With a sick child, it was not possible for me to as spend the amount of time required as much as it may have been interesting to do so to the point I was able to answer your questions.

Anyway, I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings.

On a happier and more positive note, I did appreciate and enjoy your joke (continuing my Inspector Clouseau joke) when you mentioned Dondero the liar who lies analogising the similar expression from the Steve Martin Pink Panther movie, Yuri the trainer who trains! That did make me laugh. Very witty.

Yet, Ron Paul was in debt to the tune of $765,000 in 1984. He ramped up the racist content in the late 80's through the mid-90's, and by 1995 he was worth $3.3million. In 1993 alone it is reported he made $1million off of his newsletters.

1. If he were in debt to the tune of $765,000, it is no wonder that he abandoned politics and all incendiary matters to return to his work full time in 1985.

2 The salary for an experienced specialist obstetrician working 40 hours per week is, on average, approximately $350,000 per annum. If he were to work more than 40 hours per week (as is customary for specialists, and particularly in this field of medicine for obvious reasons) he would be earning significantly more.

3. It strikes me as a little perplexing that he could be in debt to that amount if the Newsletter were such a profit-maker - but apparently not between 1976 to 1984 (18 years). The reason for this, according to MM, is that it didn't contain any racist content! Because he is no racist the subject played no part. It was about monetary things - his specialty. And because this and his political career played first fiddle over his job, he got badly in to debt. It was only when he returned full time to his well paid work and put time in to that and his family (which naturally reduced his time and energies for his other political pursuits) that over a ten year period of working hard his fortunes were restored. In that ten year frame Reality Check says there were 9 Newsletters containing passages of racist content, (leaving out anti-Semitic and homophobic material since the assertion was to do with racist content). This number of Newsletters with their racist passages, Michael asserts, is the reason for Dr Paul's restored fortune. (Because Raw Story says the Post says Crane says so although based on what I do not know for the article offers no proof of accounts nor does it cite anything upon which it supports its claims, it suspiciously (to me) puts both a conditional proviso to the alleged income actually being because of any strategy of racist content at the start of the paragraph and it also puts a limited liability clause/sentence by the Post* about the veracity of all the assertions made by Crane and the other sources at the end.)

And the witnesses who testify that Ron Paul purposely let in the racist material to secure more business?

4. I presume that you are referring to this passage of your (politically left) Raw Story source as follows:

Cato Institute President Ed Crane, who frequently lunched with Paul during this period, similarly told the paper that when the two of them discussed how to increase the circulation of Paul’s newsletters, they agreed that “people who have extreme views” were most likely to respond. Paul told Crane his best response had come when he used a mailing list from the racist and anti-Semitic newspaper, Spotlight.

If that was the strategy, it apparently worked. According to the Post, political disclosure forms show that between 1984 and 1995, Paul went from being up to $765,000 in debt to having a net worth of up to $3.3 million.

In addition to what I say above regarding this speculation that notably begins with a proviso and is without any supported proof from fact or any reliable source whatsoever, it is the last line of the article that provides the most interesting part. Interesting because it covers Raw Story and the journalist from any possible litigation in terms of the preceding content but also because it directly conforms with the same moral turpitude contained in Michael's "Inspector Clouseau" detective's speech said against me - only in his case, it is deliberately evading an important line of that quote's truth, a quote often cited, and MM provides no explanation for his omission of it. *Michael omitted the last line every time from his oft repeated article. So what did Michael omit? This:

A Paul spokesperson contacted by the Post for comment expressed doubt about the assertions made by Crane and the other sources.

Well. I wonder what Inspector Clouseau would have to say about that.

" Thank you sir may I have another!!?"

O man that was a good burnnn!

It's well-documented that Michael Moeller has three buttocks.

Goode reminds me of Kevin Bacon in this scene:

Michael always kicks your ass backed with facts.

Where and when was the last time he did that?!

Perhaps you'd like to show Michael how it's done and provide a citation.

I do  not understand why you bother, Michael always kicks your ass backed with facts.

What does a sadist do in order to torment a sadomasochist?

Absolutely nothing...

there are over 50 instances of racist, homophobic, and/or anti-Semitic content.

Another evidence-free assertion - Moeller's stock-in-trade.

Rosie contests my idea that Ron Paul allowed the racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic content because of money.

Yet, Ron Paul was in debt to the tune of $765,000 in 1984. He ramped up the racist content in the late 80's through the mid-90's, and by 1995 he was worth $3.3million. In 1993 alone it is reported he made $1million off of his newsletters.

As people like Rosie would have you believe, Ron Paul was blissfully unaware of the controversial content (even though he admittedly wrote economic content) while cashing big, fat checks. No, Ron Paul was too busy making runs to the bank to figure out why he was making so much money -- on a newsletter printed in his own name.

And the witnesses who testify that Ron Paul purposely let in the racist material to secure more business? Even though their testimony is backed up by the money timeline above? They are either lying liars or the product of "journalistic tricks", says Rosie.

A hero to Rosie and Richard.

And you know what? I believe them!

Michael

Notice Rosie continuously evades points (1) and (2) -- for the 15th time now? -- even though the evidence directly refutes her contention that Ron Paul was too busy to edit the newsletters.

Why does Rosie keep evading? I think it is painfully obvious at this point.

It is hilarious that Rosie says that WaPo is playing "journalistic tricks" (and obstinately refuses to lay out her arguments). Yet, Rosie cites a Paulbot reporter from a Ron Paul fanbot website for her claims, even though the 9 out of 240 is way off the mark. If she had bothered to do 2 minutes of research to see how many instances there actually are, she would know that.

(Just to update you on the facts, there are over 50 instances of racist, homophobic, and/or anti-Semitic content. He never read any of those 50 instances, even though the reports were only 8-12 pages long?!?)

But Rosie is not interested in evidence or facts. She desperately evades counter-evidence -- over and over again -- and swallows anything put out by the Paulbot contingent, even if totally false.

Behold, Rosie!

Michael

The core argument by most, including myself, is that Ron Paul intentionally put and/or permitted that stuff to be printed under his name because it generated $$ for him, i.e. he was pandering to racists.

My understanding is that the newsletters began in 1976 and were about money,
9 out of 240 newsletters have been identified as having racist passages in them and these occurred between Oct 1990 and Feb 1992, during this time there were ghost writers, three have been named. Mr Paul went back to his extensive job full time after the 1988 elections and gave up the possibility of standing again in 1991 to Mr Pat Buchanan. Mr Paul has never been heard to make any racist comments. He also says that he did not write or know about those racist comments but takes responsibility for anything that goes out in his name.

As for the money generated from the newsletters, how much money do you think would be generated from 9 newsletters out of 240 that contained racist passages?

Do you consider that amount sufficient and reasonable to justify the above quoted comment you made?

I find you are intellectually dishonest ...

You're not allowed to say that. It's against the rules.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Rosie, here's what Michael said...

I don't mind insults... I want everybody to get a good laugh

Rosie wrote:

"I have better things to do than refute this sort of obvious (to me anyway) journalistic bs."

Translation: Rosie has no arguments on point (1), so she evades the evidence. On point (2), Rosie's arguments are so pathetic she refuses to lay them out.

But she will assassinate the character of anybody who disagrees with her, even while she continuously evades the evidence.

Michael

I know what you are getting at with the highlighted portions. I just want you to lay out your full arguments for each of the three witness. I'll address your arguments once you lay them out.

Secondly, you are not addressing point (1), which is direct evidence from the newsletters. Why do you keep evading that point?

Michael

Can you not see? The entire article is invalid. The whole thing is made up and unreliable.

Even the Renae Hathway speech. See the line of dots? Words left out! What if the words were these:

so he always got to see the final product because we sent it to him. But he was not always available or had time to look at it himself. From 1985 he went back to full time medical practice which is more than a twelve hour day. And after the 1988 election - until the next one - he rarely came to the office and so he left the newsletter in the hands of Lew Rockwell. He would proof it.

I have better things to do than refute this sort of obvious (to me anyway) journalistic bs. I am sure that you have better things to do than to justify it.

If I were to do a proper legal analysis I would need information that is not found from journalists. Source material.

You should know this.

You ever going to answer the questions?

Are you a lawyer, Rosie? I hope not because not all off the testimony by the witnesses is hearsay.

Michael

I want everybody to get a good laugh.

A sad indictment on your character, Michael.

Classic technique of trying to demonize your critics. I don't mind insults, but when you can't address the issues, Rosie, you illustrate how intellectually bankrupt and impotent you are.

First of all, you evaded question (1), which does not involve any "journalistic tricks". It is direct evidence from the articles.

I see your highlighted portions, but you are evading important aspects of each piece of testimony. So explain the problems with the other three witnesses?

And why doesn't hearsay (not all is hearsay, btw) or "journalistic tricks" also apply to Ron Paul's testimony reported by press sources? Oh, that doesn't count because their Ron Paul's statements. Right.

Try addressing point (1) -- that you are totally evading -- and lay out your arguments on point (2). I want everybody to get a good laugh.

Thanks,
Michael

You twist things, alter the context then pretend that it is me. I do not follow this way. I find you are intellectually dishonest and misrepresent me - the only charitable interpretation is that things are lost from writing only. As a result however a decent person uses an element of goodwill in this situation. This quality you wholly lack in your conversations with me.

You brought the subject of creation in to this thread. Look what you do with it. This is an example.

I am not evading "facts". I am simply amazed that you can not see through much of what you think to be fact when it is clearly journalistic bs. Made up stuff.

You see, what you don't do is use your full senses with regard to people. Listen to Ron Paul speak with all your senses not just your ears. Examine the facts (not hearsay) of his life and examine his attitude to money and his honesty with regard to money and what you will find is the antithesis to your conclusions.

But I will. Passage by passage.

Clearly you are unaware of journalist's talk. I flatted with a journalist for years and got to know the sorts of unscrupulous methods employed to sell copy. In a recent book I read about Salvador Dali by a journalist he tells of these "tricks" also.
And they simply shout at me from your quote.

The bold bits indicate the bs. It means "nobody" "made up" "important bits left out" and "bs".

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, [this doesn't make sense if just to criticize former employer - obvious bs] said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

[This means nothing.]

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

What say I? you ask.

I say that you, Michael Moeller, are a fool. You may find smut videos obvious enough even though you will always see the worst - not that Mr Paul is a believer in free speech and wouldn't resort to removing things from the internet but instead you interpret this as incompetence. You lack subtlety, intuition and a rich understanding or appreciation of people, in my opinion, especially that rare quality of goodness combined with a deep, deep intelligence which you will see in abundance if you look at the video of Mr Wilder Smith.

I've had my fill of Creationist theories, so no thanks. Al Gore, Paul Krugman, and Arafat won Nobel prizes, so what? This is probably just one more degradation, and Creationism is not the topic of this thread. I am sure you would like to change the topic given the inconvenient facts I outlined regarding your position on the topic of the thread.

Go start a thread on Creationism if you want. Stop trying to change the topic because you have no argument.

Are you going to continue to evade inconvenient facts?

This appears to be your modus operandi, i.e. evade inconvenient facts.

Michael

I am not the least bit interested in your particular brand of Creationism, except to note that you and Ron Paul share the same fondness for Creationism and a rejection of evolution.

It is not a brand. It is a proof. It was later extrapolated to win the Nobel Prize.

You ought to listen to the deadly serious, interesting video I posted rather than waste your time and mine with smut, smear and arguing over hearsay.

If the newsletters were dated in the articles it might actually help - I have no doubt Ron Paul was back in to political swing by 1995 - but between 1989-1992 he was full time with family and his medical practice. And it was during this time that the racist passages came out. These racist ones are the newsletters he claims he knew nothing about - not the monetary stuff of which he was passionate.

I agree that it is not immoral to point out the statistics. The numbers are what they are. It is the interpretation of those statistics that matter. (BTW, Ron Paul's newsletters were not some statistical study and analysis of causes. Most were not even accurate statistics. The newsletter was purposely imbibed with provocative racial material in order to sell copies, as noted by many of the witnesses in the matter. It was pandering to racists, not some serious scholarly analysis of race.)

I am simply trying to understand your overarching point on the statistics.

What do you think explains the higher crime rates, poverty, illegitimacy, etc. among blacks?

What is your suggested solution to the problem?

Michael

Here is one thing that I know about black crime. More than 50 percent of the murders in 2010 were committed by Black males, who make up less than five percent of the United States population (not to mention that one million Black males are in prison). Ron Paul is not wrong that you should be afraid of black men.

Regarding the LA riots, one billion dollars worth of damage, because a Black guy named Rodney King didn't want to cooperate with the police. How much property damage are Black people responsible for each year in not only Los Angeles but in all of the United States? Quantify that number, and it is not wrong to call the Black Undertow a sunk cost. Ron Paul's statements that the riots stopped in time for the welfare checks to arrive is not literally true but it is metaphorically true.

It is interesting that all the problems with black crime and welfarism have worsened since the 40s. But that doesn't change the reality of the situation now. As for Ron Paul's newsletters being aimed at racists. I don't know. The Left calls everyone a racist that disagrees with them. I think that racialism is a legitimate subject and not de facto racism. It is not immoral to point out racial differences or elements of dysfunction present in certain ethnic demographics.

I have no problem with criticisms of Paul. He deserves them. But the racist charge is one that I think is petty and superficial. Paul's philosophy is a mix of Paleo Conservatism and anarchism. That you can nail him for. But the content of his newsletters was unobjectionable to a sane person who understands the problems of the black undertow in today's society. The Left has sacrilized blacks and uses the accusation of anti-black racism as a club to beat EVERYONE who disagrees with them with. That is the most important fact here and it is that fact which I wish Objectivists would openly and proudly challenge.

I am not the least bit interested in your particular brand of Creationism, except to note that you and Ron Paul share the same fondness for Creationism and a rejection of evolution.

But at least we got you to kinda, sorta answer a question without making up facts. How about you keep the ball rolling by answering the questions on the issue at-hand? Do you always just ignore inconvenient facts?

Here are the questions again:

(1) Was Ron Paul lying when he was listed as "Editor" on the newsletters? You stated plainly that you think it "improbable" that he read all these newsletters, so was listing him as "Editor" a lie?

What about the stories written in the first-person -- in Ron Paul's newsletters -- that use specific knowledge about Ron Paul? (Eg. "My old colleague, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA)...", "As a former Air Force flight surgeon...", "...urging me to run for the Republican nomination", etc. etc.)

Are the stories in his own newsletters lies, too? Or was the ghostwriter also a congressman that was a former Air Force flight surgeon being urged to run for the nomination? Curious.

(2) We already know what you think of Dondero, Rosie, i.e. that he is a lying liar who tells lies, except when those supposed lies agree with your position. In that case, the lying liar's statements that agree with your position get the Witch Stamp of Approval. And he eats babies on the side, or something.

What about the other witnesses, which are -- surprise! surprise! -- oddly consistent with what Dondero said. Explain these to me, Rosie.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Rosie, what say you?

Michael

Do you seriously believe that your ancestors were fish?

With regard to The Great Debate of creation vs the theory of evolution, I am a fan of the clear explanation provided by Wilder Smith (a reknown chemist).

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Interesting website, Jules.

There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it.

By 'evolution', the author means dying and/or having babies. No need to ask a science teacher or search Google. People die and have babies. Creationists don't dispute this.

The theory of evolution is just a theory.

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...

Happy now?

Richard didn't say "evolution is just a theory".

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

The theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.

The video is priceless. The fact that Ron Paul's campaign is so incompetent that they cannot screen out Sacha Baron Cohen just illustrates the type of crackpot crew he's surrounded himself with. Paul's "queerer than blazes" response is classic, absolutely classic, and an unguarded glimpse at Paul.

In any event, I thought I would just toss a simple question your way, as you seem totally incapable of answering other questions, at least not without making up facts. And you held true to form, even on a simple question.

Here's another one for you: is Richard a fanboy because he likes Ron Paul's Creationism? I bet you are (a fanboy for that reason).

Michael

I haven't watched it this time either. It looks sick.

I am getting worried that Richard wants to Schtupp Ron Paul, given that he is a fanboy who posts creepy Ron Paul Christian pictures. Just one question: did he ever say to you that Ron Paul is cuter than Enrique Iglesias?

There is something a bit sick about this too.

Michael. I think there must be something wrong with you that not even a pounding from Slayer would cure.

Two peas in a pod sounds about right to me I am sorry to say.

I am getting worried that Richard wants to Schtupp Ron Paul, given that he is a fanboy who posts creepy Ron Paul Christian pictures. Just one question: did he ever say to you that Ron Paul is cuter than Enrique Iglesias?

I am really interested in your "witch's radar" on Ron Paul himself and the other witnesses. I asked you a number of times now, but you keep evading.

(1) Was Ron Paul lying when he was listed as "Editor" on the newsletters? You stated plainly that you think it "improbable" that he read all these newsletters, so was listing him as "Editor" a lie?

What about the stories written in the first-person -- in Ron Paul's newsletters -- that use specific knowledge about Ron Paul. Eg. "My old colleague, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA)...", "As a former Air Force flight surgeon...", "...urging me to run for the Republican nomination".

Are the stories in his own newsletters lies, too? Or was the ghostwriter also a congressman that was a former Air Force flight surgeon being urged to run for the nomination? Curious.

(2) We already know what you think of Dondero, Rosie, i.e. that he is a lying liar who tells lies, except when those supposed lies agree with your position, then get the Witch Stamp of Approval. And he eats babies on the side, or something.

What about the other witnesses, which are -- surprise! surprise! -- oddly consistent with what Dondero said. Explain these to me, Rosie.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Rosie? What say you?

Michael

You are babbling incoherently. Yes, it is quite annoying that you cannot keep track of your own statements from one sentence to the next.

FIRST you cite Dondero as evidence of a disagreement between Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. Why would you do that if you consider him a liar? Could it be that you didn't even know who he was when you did that? Nah, couldn't be!

THEN you got busted making up Fact #1, i.e. that Dondero couldn't recall which newsletters he saw Ron Paul write. I prove this wrong, and you say it is only your "assertion".

THEN you got busted misrepresenting the reporting of the American Spectator, i.e. that Dondero only said he was a "figurehead", and did not see him editing, proofing, and signing off on the newsletters. Again, false from your own source.

NOW you are reduced to one more of your "assertions". You find it "improbable" that Ron Paul could have read every newsletter. REALLY? It's improbable that he actually read a newsletter that came out once a month and was published under his own name?!?

Are you urging that Ron Paul is too incompetent to read his own newsletter published under his own name, even though he acknowledged how much $$ it was making him at the time? He just collected the checks, but didn't care about what was in it?

So what started out as Rosie citing Dondero in favor of one of her positions, ends up with him declaring him a liar, and Ron Paul too incompetent to read his own monthly rag that is making him much coin.

At this rate, Rosie, you would get a person charged with petty theft the death penalty.

Michael

Michael reminds me of Inspector Clouseau!

Thank you for that educational commentary and explanation of your great detective's mind, Inspector! Only one problem with it. Your incorrect conclusion.

"When somebody gives a vague summary of a source allegedly consistent with their assertions, it is always best to ask for the source because they are probably lying about it. Indeed, we find that to be the case with Rosie.

If you notice the American Spectator article, Dondero's statements are entirely consistent with what is reported in the Washington Post. In both cases, Dondero reports that Ron Paul edited, proofed, and signed off on the newsletters. In fact, in the American Spectator article that Rosie cites, he gives even more detail, such as the office at which it took place and the other people involved. When somebody gives this type of detail, they are usually not lying because it would be easy to disprove their claim by showing Ron Paul was not at that office, Jean McCiver did not work for Ron Paul at that point, etc. etc."

(from Michael's post to his imagined eagerly waiting and listening world!)

Not sure what you are talking about.

Settle down, Michael.

I didn't disclose anything at all. In fact I said it was because of the improbability of his alleged detailed recollection in 2011 of events that happened nineteen to twenty one years previously and the ridiculous assertion that Paul read every line of every newsletter - since to know this he would have had to have just sat there staring at the man for ages at the very least! - that made my witch radar begin to reverberate!

You must have either misread my post or missed what I said in your emotional fervour!

from my post below:
"When I said Dondero can not recall which of the newsletters he believed he saw Ron Paul reading/editing it was not a fact but an assertion by me. I made that assertion based on several things I read including Donderos' assertion that Paul read every line of every Newsletter. How could he possibly recall and assert this?"

Who is Eric Dondero?

Eric Dondero Rittgart, as it turns out, is nothing more than a disgruntled employee who was fired by Ron Paul in 2003! Evidently he is a nutcase clamouring for attention whose word is not to be taken seriously!

Although Ron Paul doesn't allow his staff to comment on the details (he is too honourable) this link mentions that his lying was the reason. The previous link said even worse things.

Here he talks about his experiences with prostitution. (Evidently one of his favourite subjects!)

You wrote:

"I don't know the stats on DC crime but I don't think that this is that big of an exaggeration. "

You think it is accurate that 95% of blacks in DC are criminal? Do you know what the actual crime rate is? How about looking it up and reporting exactly how big the exaggeration is?

You wrote:

"This depends on the definition of "sensible". But we know that blacks voted for Obama somewhere on the order of 95%. So, yeah, blacks don't have sensible political opinions. Again, where is the racism?"

And what does this mean? Jews tend to vote heavily for Dems, and Asians split for Obama at a higher rate than Hispanics -- near 80:20 last I heard. What's the prognosis for Jews and Asians, who, on average, have the highest IQ's?

And you are avoiding a number of the other statements, like the LA riots ending when blacks went to pick up their welfare checks. Is that the truth?

Doug, you wrote:

"It is highly welfare dependent, highly uneducated, highly violent, wracked with massive illegitimacy, and the MOST racist group of people in the country. These are legitimate problems that need to be addressed. If Objectivists want to blame this on the welfare state and collectivist politics then do so. But don't pretend that black dysfunction does not exist."

Doug, you do grasp that this has not always been the case, correct? These statistics have grown substantially from the 40's-50's as documented by people like Thomas Sowell

So what changed that increased the violence, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, etc.? It wasn't genetics, so your explanation is....?

And your solution to the problem is...?

You wrote:

"His politics is flawed but so far nothing I have read from Ron Paul leads me to believe that he hates black people or is a 'racist'."

Who made that claim? The core argument by most, including myself, is that Ron Paul intentionally put and/or permitted that stuff to be printed under his name because it generated $$ for him, i.e. he was pandering to racists.

Michael

Some of Ron Paul's statements:

If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them

Yes, black men are very fast. Who are the skill position players in the NFL? Where is the racism in this?

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.

I don't know the stats on DC crime but I don't think that this is that big of an exaggeration. He uses the term "semi-criminal". What he is saying is that inner city black enclaves are hotbeds of crime. Is he wrong? Again, I don't see why this is racist?

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

I agree with this. Many people agree with this. Violent youth offenders should be treated like adults. Where is the racism?

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions

This depends on the definition of "sensible". But we know that blacks voted for Obama somewhere on the order of 95%. So, yeah, blacks don't have sensible political opinions. Again, where is the racism?

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

This isn't racism, this is common sense. This is the same thing Derbyshire was saying in his "talk" article.

Look, none of this is racism IMO. There is a massive problem with the black demographic. It is highly welfare dependent, highly uneducated, highly violent, wracked with massive illegitimacy, and the MOST racist group of people in the country. These are legitimate problems that need to be addressed. If Objectivists want to blame this on the welfare state and collectivist politics then do so. But don't pretend that black dysfunction does not exist.

His politics is flawed but so far nothing I have read from Ron Paul leads me to believe that he hates black people or is a "racist".

Sacha Baron Cohen gaffs Ron Paul:

The guy in the "Reality Check" show, Ben Swann, turns out to be a Ron Paul supporter! Go figure! Apparently he does all kinds of "reporting" on Ron Paul, such as all the "vote fraud" against Ron Paul.

Gee, I wonder why he misrepresents the one source he examines, namely the Kirchick article?!?

I am sure all the witnesses and sources against Ron Paul are lying liars, but the fanbot sources pretending to be objective are completely legit (wink wink).

Poor Rosie.

Michael

#2: "In any event ... I have no desire to relitigate Ron Paul."

This statement of Michael's is false and Michael shows it to be false.

Happy days are here again!!!

Rosie wrote:

"Dondero was not even working for Ron Paul in 1990 or 1992. And doing something odd in 1991. (Doesn't sound like an office job or staffer.)"

Nice try. Dondero says in many places that he worked for Ron Paul on-off for 12 years, mostly on. I assume that was simply a typo because he was the organizer for the Draft Ron Paul campaign from 1991-1992, as noted in many places, such as here.

And the "most racist" newsletter is not the one authored by Powell, but a 1992 edition of the "Ron Paul Survival Report". That "Reality Check" show, on the Ron Paul fan website, is full of all kinds of factual errors. Here is the original article by James Kirchik, let's see if you can spot the errors between that video and the source article. I notice you seem to be exclusively focused on the Ron Paul websites, and fell off a cliff when you went to another source (i.e. The American Spectator).

In any event, you might find this article interesting as well, Rosie.

The articles are written in the first-person and describe Ron Paul's own personal details, such as his occupation, where he lives, etc. Ron Paul's name is also listed as the "Editor" on the very report itself. What say you, Rosie?

What about the three other witnesses in the WaPo article that also confirm Ron Paul knew of the racist content, and he decided to go forth anyway because it made him good money? Are they liars as well, Rosie?

Michael

Rosie, you wrote:

"You seem to thrust such horrible motives on to me. Please be civil."

You are lying, and can be damn well sure I will call you out for it. Stop lying, and I will be more civil to you. What you are doing is downright appalling.

Let's recap your the technique of what I call "stacking lies":

(1) First you got busted misstating Dondero's claims, as you wrote:

"The ex-staffer, Donderas, states that Ron Paul is not a racist. He can not recall which of the newsletters he believed he saw Ron Paul reading/editing."

Clearly, you are putting words in his mouth that he NEVER says.

To hide that you got busted making up facts, you then turn around and claim that the above was merely your "assertion", and then...

(2) You shade the truth as if Dondero says something different in the American Spectator, and present it as if Ron Paul obliviously wrote his signature -- as if he never actually read the material. I just proved that was false from your own American Spectator article.

You are not the victim, but rather the perpetrator. How many more lies are you going to stack on top of these two?

Watch this space.

Michael

When somebody gives a vague summary of a source allegedly consistent with their assertions, it is always best to ask for the source because they are probably lying about it. Indeed, we find that to be the case with Rosie.

If you notice the American Spectator article, Dondero's statements are entirely consistent with what is reported in the Washington Post. In both cases, Dondero reports that Ron Paul edited, proofed, and signed off on the newsletters. In fact, in the American Spectator article that Rosie cites, he gives even more detail, such as the office at which it took place and the other people involved. When somebody gives this type of detail, they are usually not lying because it would be easy to disprove their claim by showing Ron Paul was not at that office, Jean McCiver did not work for Ron Paul at that point, etc. etc.

Now look at how Rosie summarizes what the article says:

"Donderos said in one of the articles I read (I think it was the American Spectator from memory) that Ron Paul was merely the figurehead of the newsletters after 1988. He said that Ron Paul signed off on all the Newsletters by signing the last page. These newsletters were were faxed through to him. This does not mean that he read them or edited them or proof read them at all. Merely that he signed them off."

Look at the bolded part. Dondero says exactly that in Rosie's own source, to wit:

"But he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer."

Busted!

Michael

I don't believe that Donderos is being strictly truthful in his assertions.

Who is Eric Dondero?

He and Michael Moeller are two peas in a pod.

Would also explain why he does not include James Powell's name in the list of writers for the Newsletter in that American Spectator Article's addendum - the one name that we know to be a fact is one author and of the most racist newsletter.

Dondero is not a reliable or trustworthy or honourable ex-employee it would seem. Shame on him.

The articles with racist comment are Oct, Nov, Dec 1990 Feb 1991, June, July 1992 and later in 1992 according to the video, Reality Check who take this information from the New Statesman.

Look at Dondero's employment:
Eric Dondero, Personal Asst./Travel Aide
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Crdtr. Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. 1991
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

Dondero was not even working for Ron Paul in 1990 or 1992. And doing something odd in 1991. (Doesn't sound like an office job or staffer.)

He is therefore a liar if he claims that RP knew of the racist content in the newsletters.

My witch radar proves invaluable to me and perfect in its reliability, yet again.

from http://spectator.org/blog/2011...

This is at the end of the Article:

"*Dondero's post to The American Spectator is reprinted below, verbatim:

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:24AM

Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the Newsletters (with major input from Murray Rothbard and Marc Thornton). Jean McCiver edited them for clarity and grammar out of the Houston office on Nasa Blvd. Ron was merely a figurhead.

But he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer.

Eric Dondero, Personal Asst./Travel Aide
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Crdtr. Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. 1991
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003"

You seem to thrust such horrible motives on to me. Please be civil. This is not a personal thing. We disagree about the integrity of Ron Paul, is all. It is interesting to compare notes. But please don't be abusive. There is no need for that behaviour, Michael, said Mother.

You ask "Do you understand the point about Rockwell yet? That Ron Paul shares the same fundamental principles as the anarchist Rockwell?"

And then you say"you've just thrown mud at the wall in the desperate hope that nobody will notice you have not named one single way in which they differ.".

Firstly, I have no such "desperate hope".
Second, I do not agree that Rockwell is an anarchist. Nor Ron Paul. This was why I posted the article by Rothbard since he says himself that his libertarian policies are not anarchist. This major premise, involving anarchy, from which you ask me to now find differences/similarities between Ron Paul and Rockwell and, latterly, Rombard, I do not even agree is the case!
Thirdly, if you look at the conversation between us I responded to your assertion that Ron Paul is a liar. I do not believe that he is a liar. But somehow you have altered the course of the conversation to bring Rockwell in to it, anarchy in to it and are now trying to have me contradict your assertions! I am not even sure how we ended up here!

As a matter of interest, aren't you supposed to be working?!
And, as a matter of concern, I should probably be asleep at this hour!

I shall look forward to your reply to my assertions and analysis about Dondero tomorrow!

You wrote:

"Donderos said in one of the articles I read (I think it was the American Spectator from memory) that Ron Paul was merely the figurehead of the newsletters after 1988. He said that Ron Paul signed off on all the Newsletters by signing the last page. These newsletters were were faxed through to him. This does not mean that he read them or edited them or proof read them at all. Merely that he signed them off."

Give me the article, please. I want to compare it against what you have provided.

Thanks,
Michael

I give you Dondero's EXACT claim from a WaPo article -- which includes him observing Ron Paul editing, proofing, and signing off on the newsletters in the 1990's -- and you still dispute it. Why? Because you read something somewhere else -- that you can't be bothered to cite. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

I put the evidence right in front of your eyeballs, and you respond: where is it?

Please provide the evidence from The American Spectator that supports your "assertion". Every time I ask you for evidence to support your claims, it never seems to materialize. Funny how that works.

Then you create a strawman that makes it seem like he was hovering over Ron Paul every second. All he said was that he saw him editing, proofing, and signing off.

Your only response is to say Dondero is lying. Pathetic. Why? Because his testimony does not fit with your preconceived notions formed before you ever bothered to learn the facts.

What about the other three witnesses in the WaPo article? Are they all lying too?

Please answer because I want people to fully see your level of excuse-making and utter desperation in denying the evidence -- evidence pasted on your eyelids.

This is absolutely appalling, but by all means please continue.

Michael

When I said Dondero can not recall which of the newsletters he believed he saw Ron Paul reading/editing it was not a fact but an assertion by me. I made that assertion based on several things I read including Donderos' assertion that Paul read every line of every Newsletter. How could he possibly recall and assert this?

Donderos said in one of the articles I read (I think it was the American Spectator from memory) that Ron Paul was merely the figurehead of the newsletters after 1988. He said that Ron Paul signed off on all the Newsletters by signing the last page. These newsletters were were faxed through to him. This does not mean that he read them or edited them or proof read them at all. Merely that he signed them off.

I doubt very much that during these years when Ron Paul was a full time medic, Donderos would also be standing over Ron Paul every time a fax came in and stay standing over him while he read an entire newsletter. It seems implausible to me. Doesn't it to you? Would any self-respecting person have some staffer at his heels watching him for that period of time?!

Ron Paul says in the Texas Monthly:

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”"

That sounds truthful to me. He sounds upset and regretful that he had hurt her, a woman and a friend. Not something a man like Ron Paul would do, I doubt very much from what is said of him and what I have ascertained of him from his manner. Yet Donderos would assert that he was standing over Ron Paul as he read this article about his friend and signed off on it. I don't believe that Donderos is being strictly truthful in his assertions. People of Ron Paul's ilk do not allow persons of lower rank like Donderos to stand over them on guard while they read. Do you really believe that could be true of every Newsletter that came in via the fax? That Donderos would immediately rush over from whatever work he was doing at the time to stand guard over Ron Paul while he was reading?! And Ron Paul would allow this? It sounds patently absurd and therefore not believable to me.

It also is not consistent with the blog I quoted below of Donderos' statement where he is very careful to gloss over the Newsletters focussing on his foreign policy as the reason to dismiss Ron Paul. Whereas if he knew Ron Paul had lied, then this would not be something to gloss over. I think Donderos has his own motive, or has been paid, to say what he said. I know this is just speculation on my part but it doesn't add up to me and I smell a rat. My "witch radar" is going off loudly!

You are still providing ZERO evidence on how Ron Paul disagrees with them.

What in "Liberty Defined" is different from the anarchists?

What in Rothbard's article does Ron Paul disagree with?

Thus far, you've just thrown mud at the wall in the desperate hope that nobody will notice you have not named one single way in which they differ.

Michael

Do you understand the point about Rockwell yet? That Ron Paul shares the same fundamental principles as the anarchist Rockwell?

Furthermore, do you dispute my contention?

Ron Paul, from what I have read, is certainly in agreement with Rockwell and Rothbard in terms of his economic and foreign policy. But I do not agree that these policies could be considered anarchy as I understand the term. Paul's book "Liberty Defined" is his own statement of all his political policy. Again, I wouldn't call his politics "anarchy".

(I do not know what Rockwell's view on every political issue is e.g.,abortion.)

If you agree that Rockwell-Rothbard are politically on the same page, this article by Rothbard answering the question, Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? denies that his politics are anarchist.

Are libertarians Anarchists?

"Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles. Confusion enters, however, because of the existence in the past, particularly in the United States, of a small but brilliant group of "individualist anarchists" headed by Benjamin R. Tucker. Here we come to a different breed. The individualist anarchists have contributed a great deal to libertarian thought. They have provided some of the best statements of individualism and antistatism that have ever been penned. In the political sphere, the individualist anarchists were generally sound libertarians. They favored private property, extolled free competition, and battled all forms of governmental intervention. Politically, the Tucker anarchists had two principal defects: (1) they failed to advocate defense of private landholdings beyond what the owner used personally; (2) they relied too heavily on juries and failed to see the necessity for a body of constitutional libertarian law which the private courts would have to uphold.

Contrasted to their minor political failings, however, they fell into grievous economic error. They believed that interest and profit were exploitative, due to an allegedly artificial restriction on the money supply. Let the State and its monetary regulations be removed, and free banking be established, they believed, and everyone would print as much money as he needed, and interest and profits would fall to zero. This hyperinflationist doctrine, acquired from the Frenchman Proudhon, is economic nonsense. We must remember, however, that "respectable" economics, then and now, has been permeated with inflationist errors, and very few economists have grasped the essentials of monetary phenomena. The inflationists simply take the more genteel inflationism of fashionable economics and courageously push it to its logical conclusion.

The irony of this situation was that while the individualist anarchists laid great stress on their nonsensical banking theories, their political order that they advocated would have led to economic results directly contrary to what they believed. They thought that free banking would lead to indefinite expansion of the money supply, whereas the truth is precisely the reverse: it would lead to "hard money" and absence of inflation. The economic fallacies of the Tuckerites, however, are of a completely different order than those of the collectivist anarchists. The errors of the collectivists led them to advocate virtual political Communism, while the economic errors of the individualists still permitted them to advocate a nearly libertarian system. The superficial might easily confuse the two, because the individualists were led to attack "capitalists," whom they felt were exploiting the workers through State restriction of the money supply.

These "right-wing" anarchists did not take the foolish position that crime would disappear in the anarchist society. Yet they did tend to underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a constitution, the private judicial process might become truly "anarchic" in the popular sense.

The Tucker wing of anarchism flourished in the 19th century, but died out by World War I. Many libertarian thinkers in that Golden Age of liberalism were working on doctrines that were similar in many respects. These genuine libertarians never referred to themselves as anarchists, however; probably the main reason was that all the anarchist groups, even the right-wingers, possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common.

Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints.

We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

You wrote:

"He [Dondero] can not recall which of the newsletters he believed he saw Ron Paul reading/editing."

REALLY? You just plain made that up.

How about you take a look at this article:

"Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s."

As you can see, Rosie, this directly contradicts your claim, and I have no idea where you got that from. Dondero's claims are well-known to anybody familiar with the facts.

Also note that the WaPo article cites 3 other witnesses (2 named, 1 unnamed), in addition to Dondero, that provided testimony that Ron Paul knew of the racist content.

You want to explain that to me -- without making things up this time?

Thanks,
Michael

You wrote:

"From all the commentary and video I have now read and watched, it is universally agreed that Ron Paul is not a racist."

If you had bothered to read the thread -- like I told you 15 times now -- you would realize the dispute, at least by me, was NOT over whether Ron Paul was a racist.

The dispute has been whether Ron Paul either wrote, signed off, or knew of the racist content in those newsletter, thus indicating he was willing to let racist content go out under his name for fun and profit, which he later denied.

If only you had bothered to read the thread, Rosie, you might actually know what the actual claims are. But you're too lazy to rectify your ignorance.

So be it. Keep going.

Michael

Do you understand the point about Rockwell yet? That Ron Paul shares the same fundamental principles as the anarchist Rockwell?

Furthermore, do you dispute my contention?

Michael

You wrote:-

Furthermore, Rockwell is alleged by libertarians (that ran in the Rockwell circles) to have authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters. You are aware of this, right?

And this gives a nice little example of BOTH Ron Paul's lies...

From all the commentary and video I have now read and watched, it is universally agreed that Ron Paul is not a racist. This is agreed because he has never been heard to utter or write racist speech or commentary/policy. It is also almost universally agreed (except by the opponents who originally may have believed this was possible but whose motive was really just to discredit him and they soon are drowned out) and was not responsible for the racist content of the 9 Newsletters that contained this sort of content.

The ex-staffer, Donderas, states that Ron Paul is not a racist. He can not recall which of the newsletters he believed he saw Ron Paul reading/editing. It is thought that any Newsletter edited by Ron Paul would be more likely to be ones about monetary/fiscal policy upon which he was mostly only interested. He ceased to be the editor of the Newsletter in May 1988 after the election when he returned full time to his medical practice and providing for his wife and five children. Lew Rockwell took over the editorship.

I think you need more than a nap, a lobotomy instead, perhaps?

It's amazing how up on the facts you are. Last post you claimed that Rothbard was the author. Couple of hours later you magically have a new author. How does that work?

Do you still claim Rothbard was the author? If so, where's your evidence?

You do realize that the bylines to all of those articles, except one, are still missing, including the one Reality Check calls the most racist, right? All this report did was assume the rest were written by Powell.

How does that mesh with the firsthand witnesses, like Dondero, that said they saw Ron Paul editing, proofing, and signing off on the newsletters?

I can't wait to hear your explanation.

Michael

Phew! Lazy Bones Inc. reports, after careful reading of many speculative assertions as to the authorship of the racist content in 9 of the 240 Ron Paul Newsletters (beginning and ending 1976-1996), that :-

(a) one author was definitely James Powell (confirmed author of the Race Riots Article of 1992) and

(b) it is alleged that, because the language is so similar in the other newsletters containing racist remarks, it is likely that it was he who wrote the others also and was probably the freelance writer referred to by Lew Rockwell following his denial that he was the author of those racist newsletters.

The best piece of investigative journalism on the subject was from a program called Reality Check which you might be interested to watch below. (It is concise, objectively presented, factual and contains the aforesaid conclusion in the second video when the cut off byline of the author's name is finally revealed.)

The two videos are contained here.

Time for a well deserved nap, I think.

Whatever you say. Good luck with that.

Rosie, you home? Evidence? Rosie? Bueller? Anybody? Evidence? Bueller?

Michael

#1: "Your lies are well-documented."

This statement of Michael's is false and Michael knows it to be false.

My (alleged) lies are not well-documented, but Michael's soon will be.

You wrote:

"No, it was your contention they were one and the same (regardless of different labels)."

Yes it was. I provided all the evidence necessary on the Ron Paul Traitor thread, and you have refused to read it, much less make an argument.

Since you were too lazy to read the arguments, I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary. You failed miserably at that, now you are trying to bob and weave.

Pony up the evidence, or admit you don't have an earthly clue as to whether Ron Paul has the same political principles as anarchists -- of which Rockwell is one example.

Michael

Rosie wrote:

"From my brief, the research from Lazy Bones Inc. also suggests that it was more likely to have been Rothbard, rather than Rockwell, who authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters."

Please provide your evidence, as this is going to be mighty interesting. (I'll then proceed to debunk the rest of your Ron Paul talking point nonsense on this issue. Pays to read up on the previous threads, dear Rosie.)

While you are at it, please provide your evidence that Ron Paul has different political principles than anarchist Lew Rockwell. That's your claim, right? Pony up.

Thanks,
Michael

Was it not your contention that Ron Paul and Rockwell were different politically?

No, it was your contention they were one and the same (regardless of different labels).

Furthermore, Rockwell is alleged by libertarians (that ran in the Rockwell circles) to have authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters. You are aware of this, right?

From my brief, the research from Lazy Bones Inc. also suggests that it was more likely to have been Rothbard, rather than Rockwell, who authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters. Since Rothbard is dead, he can't rise and correct the situation and this would also explain Rockwell not admitting to it because, well, not many, and certainly not these men it would seem, like to speak ill of the dead.

Ron Paul has already said that he was regretful that as a result of his busy medical practice he was not more careful in his supervision of his ghostwriters. As a partner in a law firm, you will appreciate that partners, like others who are responsible for their underlings, and also honourable, take responsibility for anything put out in the responsible person's name and don't get caught up in that awful business of blaming.

Stop evading.

Your lies are well-documented ...

Give a specific example of one of my "well-documented" lies.

Pony up the evidence instead of dodging.

And struggling, really struggling.

Was it not your contention that Ron Paul and Rockwell were different politically?

Well, pony up the evidence instead of dodging.

I actually really like your evidence so far, considering you cited one of my own previous witnesses -- a former staffer -- against Ron Paul. Keep it up, this is highly illuminating.

Best,
Michael

Secondly, it is hilarious you cite Dondero. Not only does Dondero note that Ron Paul was closely aligned with Rockwellian foreign policy, but also that he saw Ron Paul proofing, editing, and signing off on the 1990's newsletters.

Dondero is one of the principal witnesses against Ron Paul's (later) claim that he knew nothing about the racist content of the newsletters.

When answering one question only from you - that of finding links to public disagreement between two people - I show my lack of guile, my innocent trust in your honour! your integrity! and your intellect (ahem.. cough) - that you won't then provoke another argument from something else contained therein or the person who is reporting same!

Really. Some people just like to quarrel about anything and everything around here.

What a circle it all is with you! Sigh.

Hi ho! Hi ho!
To the dictionary we go!
Hi ho! hi ho! hi ho! hi ho!
Hi ho!
Hi ho!

issue.

You didn't specify that you wanted disagreement only on a political issue. Really, my lazy bones ache with the wasted effort I made on your behalf, dear!

I do hope that you won't only settle for this meaning (she added quizzically, nay, suspiciously):

issue, n., what ever standard-setter, Michael Moeller says it means or anything other than examples provided by researchers from Lazy Bones Inc.

???

Rosie,

All this demonstrates is that you are completely unfamiliar with the facts re Ron Paul. Totally clueless. But first things first, here was my question:

"Since you are too lazy to read the arguments, provide some links for me on where Rockwell openly disagrees with Ron Paul on an issue."

You have given NO explicit examples of Rockwell disagreeing with Ron Paul on a political issue. At best, you cite one implicit disagreement over a policy issue, i.e. the war in Afghanistan. Yet, Ron Paul has later called it an "unconstitutional war", even though he voted for it. We'll check that off the list, especially if you bothered to read both Ron Paul's and Rockwell's principles of foreign policy, which are perfectly aligned.

Now, contrast that with the other thread where I cited numerous examples, and not just specific policy issues, but also fundamental principles. You've obstinately refused to read and/or address those facts. So much the less for you. (Please look at the very beginning of the Ron Paul Traitor thread and my exchange with Scott DeSalvo.)

So to recap your non-policy issues:

(1) This is Ed Crane saying Ron Paul should disassociate with Rockwell while noting the two are longtime friends/political partners. Where is the disagreement over policy between Rockwell and Ron Paul?

(2) Again, ZERO disagreement over a political issue. Nice try. There is just a disagreement over how to bring people together for their mutual cause. Where's the political disagreement over an issue, dear Rosie?

(3) Already noted the Afghanistan war vote, which Ron Paul conveniently forgets when he calls it an "unconstitutional war". Does he not remember his own votes? Apparently.

Secondly, it is hilarious you cite Dondero. Not only does Dondero note that Ron Paul was closely aligned with Rockwellian foreign policy, but also that he saw Ron Paul proofing, editing, and signing off on the 1990's newsletters.

Dondero is one of the principal witnesses against Ron Paul's (later) claim that he knew nothing about the racist content of the newsletters.

I appreciate you citing him for me, Rosie.

Wanna try again, Lazy Bones?

Michael

Here are some links where Ron Paul has made public his disagreements with Lew Rockwell:

1. from http://reason.com/blog/2011/12...

"But the Times article actually contained one of the most relevant sections of reporting on libertarian cat-fighting (and Ron Paul's position vis-a-vis) I can remember reading. It is:

[Cato Institute founder] Crane, a longtime critic of Mr. Rockwell, called Mr. Paul's close association with him "one of the more perplexing things I've ever come across in my 67 years." He added: "I wish Ron would condemn these fringe things that float around because of Rockwell. I don't believe he believes any of that stuff."

Mr. Paul said in the interview that he did not, but he declined to condemn Mr. Rockwell, saying he did not want to get in the middle of a fight. "

2. from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...

Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people,” he said. “I thought, we’re so small, why shouldn’t we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?”

Another publicly stated disagreement.

3. from http://www.rightwingnews.com/e...

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul member of staff, writes:

"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.
...
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution,....

....Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” ...."

Rockwell was a "no" man and yet Paul, in the end, voted "yes". Pretty well a public disagreement - albeit implicit only from this article - but here Rockwell publicly states his "no to all war" opinion.

Rockwell and Rothbard are/were also libertarians. They just believe libertarianism should consist of anarchism.

Michael

I think Ron Paul is a de facto anarchist, regardless of what he calls himself. He shares the same theory of rights and the same constitutional principles. You would know this if you had bothered to read the arguments. But you're lazy.

Since you are too lazy to read the arguments, provide some links for me on where Rockwell openly disagrees with Ron Paul on an issue. Good luck.

Michael

Since you apparently cannot grasp principles, I will put it in your own gorilla logic. Lew Rockwell supports fundamental political principles W, X, Y, and Z. Ron Paul supports fundamental political W, X, Y, and Z. Therefore, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell agree on fundamental political principles, regardless of any difference in labels.

Correction. Your conclusion can only read:
Therefore, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell agree on fundamental political principles, W, X, Y, and Z.

What do you mean by "regardless of any difference in labels" and "The fact that they go by different labels is a distinction without a difference."?

Am I correct that you are implying that although Ron Paul labels himself a libertarian and has written numerous books on the subject, his true label is really an anarchist like Rockwell (you allege)?! Or is it vice versa? That Rockwell (you allege) labels himself an anarchist but really he is a libertarian?!

The fact that they go by different labels is a distinction without a difference.

I just named the political principles on which they agree, and these are fundamental principles about the Constitution and government.

Since you apparently cannot grasp principles, I will put it in your own gorilla logic. Lew Rockwell supports fundamental political principles W, X, Y, and Z. Ron Paul supports fundamental political W, X, Y, and Z. Therefore, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell agree on fundamental political principles, regardless of any difference in labels.

My full arguments are laid out on that thread. Are you going to get off your ass and read them, or just remain ignorant? Let me guess...

Michael

Your lies are well-documented

By whom?

By your logic, therefore, you are saying that Ron Paul=Loo Rockwell (politically). And anything said about Ron Paul can therefore be argued with evidence about Loo Rockwell??!!

A=B?! LOL

You allege that Loo Rockwell is an anarchist and a racist.
Thus:
1. Show me where Ron Paul declares himself an anarchist please, Michael.
2. Show me where Ron Paul declares himself a racist please, Michael.

Incidentally, I would not have considered what you wrote about Rockwell as any form of argument - since the articles I cited were not written by Loo Rockwell - let alone any argument to what I wrote about Ron Paul. But if you can provide a direct quote from me and a direct counter argument in reply to this from what you wrote, I would be most curious to see how your supposedly congenital capabilities of simple argument transpire!

Your lies are well-documented, and I linked to your arguments about the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters just a few posts ago.

Do you think anybody expects that you'll agree that you are a liar?!?

People can go read that thread -- or just about any thread in which you appear -- and judge for themselves.

Michael

Another Lie, Richard

Can you copy and paste this one?

You have yet to produce a single specific example of a lie told by either me or Ron Paul.

You seem congenitally incapable of grasping even the simplest of arguments.

It's not just that Ron Paul's articles appear on Rockwell's website, but also that the two are joined at the hip -- personally and politically. If you had any clue about Ron Paul besides articles plucked from Rockwell's website, you would have known this.

Furhermore, if you had bothered to read the previous thread -- as I specifically asked you to do -- you would see the arguments as to how they share similar, if not the same, political outlook. I even cite other articles from Rockwell's website.

To give you a brief summary, they agree on a flawed "states' rights" theory, 10th Amendment juridprudence, a rejection of the 14th Amendment, and foreign policy. These are the very fundamental political principles on which the two agree, hence the reason Rockwell served as his chief of staff.

What did you think, Rosie? That Rockwell served as his chief of staff, and the two have remained closely allied over the years, yet they disagree politically?!?!

Do yourself a favor and go read that thread and educate yourself, instead of desperately grasping for the flimsiest argument within reach.

Michael

To lie a person has to say something that they think is false.

Are you saying that Richard said you called him a racist?
Do you think that Richard said you called him a racist?

It is rather interesting that you take articles from Rockwell's website.

Why should this be interesting? As Ron Paul's former chief of staff he has (probably) the biggest collection of articles written about Ron Paul by other people than any other internet site.

You do realize that in addition to being an anarchist, he was also Ron Paul's former chief of staff?

So what if he is/was an anarchist? What I said in my post is not about Rockwell! Why is it relevant? I doubt that Rockwell being an anarchist would have any bearing to what others write about Ron Paul? Or whether it affects his collection of these articles and commentaries about Ron Paul!

(Oh, the delicious irony in citing Rockwell's support of Ron Paul while previously trying to rebut that people like Goode are closet anarchists.)

No irony as I understand irony. If I were sitting an English exam I would describe your sentence as an example of a non sequitur rather than an example of irony, Michael!

Furthermore, Rockwell is alleged by libertarians (that ran in the Rockwell circles) to have authored the racist content in Ron Paul's newsletters. You are aware of this, right?

As I said, I am not talking or passing judgement about Rockwell. I am merely looking at the excellent collection of multiple authored articles in the collection about Ron Paul that is neatly accessible and well ordered and hosted on his website.

I must say, Michael, and in particular for one who others believe to "set the standard", I would have to question your standard if your logic is to think it apt to castigate the character of the owner of a website upon which the articles about Ron Paul are located, articles not written, but merely compiled, by that owner, in order to refute what I said about Ron Paul!

Duh! (As I have seen written by some and find most amusing!)

Where did I call you a racist? I did not, and I assume you aren't one.

What I did say was that you first denied the racial content of Ron Paul's newsletters, then you admitted the racial content but provided the standard Ron Paul excuses for it. I simply noted that your previously PC sensibilities on race magically disappeared when it came to somebody you like, i.e. Ron Paul. You're a hypocrite, as are most Progressives on the issue of race.

Michael