Although I can appreciate your point of view, and do agree that he shouldn't have walked out of the interview (he's better than that), in terms of context, we must also take into consideration the time of the publishing. I completely agree that he is at fault for allowing these articles to be published, but similarly 20-22 years ago, when media was less harsh when filtering every piece of material sent out to the public, as well as the fact that he was primarily practicing medicine, I think it is safe to assume (all though it is an assumption), to think that he simply allowed them to be published without much proof-reading if at all.
Agreed, he did address them in 2007 when they were brought up, however he only addressed it as much as it was asked, which wasn't too much. But similarly, from Ron Paul's stand point, having addressed it many years ago as well as in 2007, one would think to find his response or his position on the subject the media could simply post a response from the time. But it is unfair to think and re-ask the same questions after 4 years as well as after 10 years.
An ideal media outlet would post the findings as well as his response at the time, and possibly presenting new information on the subject. You'd think that would be the unbiased way to report the news... I guess we should re-ask and republicize OJ Simpsons case, or why Bush went to war in Iraq, or why you stole that cookie out of the cookie jar when you were 5 years old because although you gave your explanation, your mom doesn't accept it so she wants the answer she wants to hear.
Furthermore as Sandro pointed out, Ron Paul has stated several times that the presidential issues should matter, not personal matters. I believe this to an extent, but I do like to know someone's character and in this case as any video would show, Ron Paul's character is simply NOT a racist.
Look at his policies, he is a man that has convictions beyond the scope of just talking points.
Look at his voting record. I support Ron Paul 100%, he is the perfect candidate, a George Washington of our time.
In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[144]
lol. really ?
George Washington in the 1780s was literally hundreds of years ahead of Ron Paul when it comes to religious ideology.
Then again..so were most of the founding fathers that had the balls to proclaim separation of state & church in the 1700's.
Imagine if current Republicans ( including Ron Paul ) would be responsible for drafting the Constitution. The US would be a Christian Iran!
Go Ron Paul!! Seriously, I like the guy and some of his foreign policy ideas - even though he's as simplistic as Bush - but he should never become President. It would be a huge step back for all of us
En une phrase, pourquoi vous trippez autant sur Ron Paul?
It is a hit piece 100% they are covering 2008 election stuff asked, answered & coverd in 2008. yet here they are asking the exact same q's like it was Brand New Startling Info - wtf!?I like Ron and admire his conviction but in this case he is being stupid. It's not a hit piece. He was asked how he could let racist newsletters be published under his name. The newsletters went beyond the libertarian platform and were actually hateful. I get his logic behind being anti-civil rights laws (even if I disagree it) but the letters were were written by biggots and he let them get published under his name which kinda says a lot about what he thinks. He should have made a much greater effort to distance himself from these in 2007 (they didn't get attention because he wasn't in the lead) and he definitely shouldn't have walked out of an interview with CNN. It's only drawing more attention to the issue. He screwed up.
Although I can appreciate your point of view, and do agree that he shouldn't have walked out of the interview (he's better than that), in terms of context, we must also take into consideration the time of the publishing. I completely agree that he is at fault for allowing these articles to be published, but similarly 20-22 years ago, when media was less harsh when filtering every piece of material sent out to the public, as well as the fact that he was primarily practicing medicine, I think it is safe to assume (all though it is an assumption), to think that he simply allowed them to be published without much proof-reading if at all.
Agreed, he did address them in 2007 when they were brought up, however he only addressed it as much as it was asked, which wasn't too much. But similarly, from Ron Paul's stand point, having addressed it many years ago as well as in 2007, one would think to find his response or his position on the subject the media could simply post a response from the time. But it is unfair to think and re-ask the same questions after 4 years as well as after 10 years.
An ideal media outlet would post the findings as well as his response at the time, and possibly presenting new information on the subject. You'd think that would be the unbiased way to report the news... I guess we should re-ask and republicize OJ Simpsons case, or why Bush went to war in Iraq, or why you stole that cookie out of the cookie jar when you were 5 years old because although you gave your explanation, your mom doesn't accept it so she wants the answer she wants to hear.
Furthermore as Sandro pointed out, Ron Paul has stated several times that the presidential issues should matter, not personal matters. I believe this to an extent, but I do like to know someone's character and in this case as any video would show, Ron Paul's character is simply NOT a racist.
lol. really ?
George Washington in the 1780s was literally hundreds of years ahead of Ron Paul when it comes to religious ideology.
Then again..so were most of the founding fathers that had the balls to proclaim separation of state & church in the 1700's.
Imagine if current Republicans ( including Ron Paul ) would be responsible for drafting the Constitution. The US would be a Christian Iran!
Go Ron Paul!! Seriously, I like the guy and some of his foreign policy ideas - even though he's as simplistic as Bush - but he should never become President. It would be a huge step back for all of us
Ron paul will not be better as president.. nothing will change.. and you all know that
Ron Paul is the anti-politician. He doesn't go by polls or the opinion of the mass morons, he just goes by what makes sense and what he believes in and agree with him or not, you can't not respect him.
If he becomes president he will veto every spending bill until they have one that balances the budget. Watch people shit bricks.