Fact check on Obama's claims (Jobs Speech Yesterday)

[BridgeTroll]

it's not about the way he looks, it's about the opinions he published in his newsletter (yes, he said it wasn't him when the excrement hit the air conditioning, but it turns out he'd been expressing similar views in articles that he definitely wrote for years).

edit:  oh, right, 'it looks to me like he is'.  that's not the same thing as 'he looks to me like he is', and actually means 'the evidence i have seen strongly suggests that he is'.

Please post the evidence.

[ChriswUfGator]

^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.

No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.

[manasia]

Evidence of Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters:

There has been controversy over Ron Paul’s ties to racism for some time now. Many people have pointed to Ron Paul’s Newsletters as proof of his racism. Paul has previously admitted to  writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008. He has given no explanation, for how the racism entered his newsletter. If we are to take Paul at his word, he is guilty of at least promoting racism on a large scale. Paul earned almost a million dollars a year from the racist, conspiracy theorist newsletters. Here are some excerpts that I’ve found.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

I believe that people change, and people can be forgiven. However, this is disturbing.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/why-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-matter/
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Consider the source, Manasia.

http://newsone.com/newsone-original/boycewatkins/arizona-state-fans-blackface-2/

This is a touchy subject and probably best left untouched, but I only read one other article on the site and it's definitely slanted - in the other direction.

Take this for what it's worth, but it feels like the Huff Post slanting a Repub view or Fox News doing the same to the Dems.  It's all about the author and their 'perception' of an event.

[Tacachale]

^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.

No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.

That still leaves you with the ads that don't benefit any particular candidate directly, but attack another candidate on some side issue. And those are the most insidious of all.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No, that gets eliminated too. No private funding for anything that benefits an individual candidate, including adverts.

Sure.  As soon as we eliminate Amendment Numero Uno.

[JeffreyS]

Basic Hamiltonian economics that served the country so well and was eradicated by Regan and Clinton. (supported by Bush and Obama as well)

Fair Trade not Free Trade and Streetcar Now!!!!!!

[manasia]

Consider the source, Manasia.

http://newsone.com/newsone-original/boycewatkins/arizona-state-fans-blackface-2/

This is a touchy subject and probably best left untouched, but I only read one other article on the site and it's definitely slanted - in the other direction.

Take this for what it's worth, but it feels like the Huff Post slanting a Repub view or Fox News doing the same to the Dems.  It's all about the author and their 'perception' of an event.

From what I read from the newsletters, the proof is in the pudding.

The thing is Westide, is that you are doing a better job of defending Ron Paul than he is himself. I think that in itself is a testament.

[manasia]

Here is another investigation from a non African American News Source:

Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:
1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.
2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.
The possibilities:
1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.
2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).
3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/#ixzz1XrxNYMjk

It says just about the same thing as the newsone source and other sources mentioned on the thread.

[Ajax]

i hate to come off like a single-issue voter, but every other candidate would have to be really awful before i'd vote for someöne so intent on criminalizing abortion.

I may be exposing myself as somewhat of an idiot, but I don't recall hearing Ron Paul say that he wants to criminalize abortion.  If he did say it, maybe I missed it because I thought the issue was settled.  If so, I apologize, but if anyone has any proof, please share it. 

My understanding is that Ron Paul's personal feelings (based on his experience as an obstetrician) is that he's not in favor of abortion.  But it seems that it would go against everything he says about getting the government out of our personal affairs if he were to try and outlaw abortion. 

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to get enlightened. 

[Ajax]

I just did a quick search and didn't find anything that showed where Ron Paul would try and criminalize abortion.  He's personally opposed to it, but he sees it as settled law, and if there were to be any change it's something that should be decided by the states.  Here's a direct quote from Paul: “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need."

Sorry for moving this thread even further off topic. 

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

short answer:  he believes abortion should be illegal, but doesn't believe the federal government has the right to make it so.

according to his website, he doesn't believe the federal government should have any say in it--he believes it should be decided at state level.  he words it (to the best ov my knowledge, this quote is specifically in regard to abortion) "I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."

on the other hand (and surprising to me), he apparently voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation

[buckethead]

You are making stuff up.

President Obama is just another in the long line of Oligarch controlled puppets. I'm not sure if he understood what he signed up for, but we are getting more of the same thing we got from previous presidents.

Carter was the last independent President, while before him was Kennedy. We saw how that worked out.

Would RP suffer the same fate? ( I hope not)

I think if you looked deeper than the MSM or left wing, blogsites you'll see a different picture than they paint.

As to Abortion: The President does not put forth legislation, but he can veto it. This is where his power lies. All other power as afforded by the constitution, lies within congress, and all other powers lie at the state level.

The most important issues facing our nation are warmongering and the destruction of the middle class through globalization and bankster pilferage.

Ron Paul will (at least attempt to) deal with these paramount issues.

[Tacachale]

Here is another investigation from a non African American News Source:

Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:
1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.
2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.
The possibilities:
1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.
2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).
3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/#ixzz1XrxNYMjk

It says just about the same thing as the newsone source and other sources mentioned on the thread.

And here's an article from the libertarian website reason.com that says exactly the same thing. They list a bunch of news articles from 1996 in which Paul and his campaign not only don't deny writing this material, they own up to it and defend it.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

And he're an article written by Paul himself where he uses the slur "anchor babies" for American children of immigrants, and argues that the 14th amendment should be ammended so that natural born American citizens are no longer citizens (his article contains a number of laughable falsehoods to try and make his argument tenable, but that's another story).

And then of course there's his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (yes, a standing U.S. Congressman is opposed to the Civil Rights Act).

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/

But on the plus side, he's unelectable, so there's that.