"Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape!" (note, in quotes)

[madfoot]

In which case, why were these letters sent by staff working for a libertarian to libertarian supporters for years, without these libertarians kicking up a massive fuss?
Did nobody notice that they were promoting collectivist propaganda?

Do you have any proof the newsletters were managed by actual libertarians? Can you find me a list of staff who helped publish it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If an individual sits through a KKK meeting more than once, it's safe to say they might hold the same views of the speaker.

They might. But they also might just be curious, or maybe the person has a crush on another member.

Your point is valid, however, we have a lot of additional evidence of Obama's own beliefs and no evidence those beliefs mirror Wright's sermons. I also don't know how cherry picked the sermons of Wright's were that have been touted as reflecting on Obama.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He tends to be bad at phrasing things. It may sound ridiculous the way he said it, but the point is sound. Libertarians don't like generalizing people into groups (be it by race, religion, age, what have you), and as an ideology, libertarianism is essentially incompatible with nationalism. I wouldn't say that it's "impossible" for libertarians to be racist, but it's a position based in individual rights and libertarians generally see people as individuals.

Fine--so when Ron Paul published racist comments in his newsletter (written in the first person with no other byline), he was not being a true Libertarian. It doesn't argue that they weren't his comments (or ghost written as if they were his comments) that he is completely responsible for.

Probably not a big deal that he was not a true Libertarian, since he's seeking the Republican Party nomination anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any proof the newsletters were managed by actual libertarians? Can you find me a list of staff who helped publish it?

This is pretty silly. Paul has been an extremist Libertarian for at least as long as he's been in public life. The newsletters were all about fundy Libertarian views.

 

[brodski]

Do you have any proof the newsletters were managed by actual libertarians? Can you find me a list of staff who helped publish it?

Can you give me a list of actual libertarians against which we could check such a list?

 

[madfoot]

They might. But they also might just be curious, or maybe the person has a crush on another member.

Your point is valid, however, we have a lot of additional evidence of Obama's own beliefs and no evidence those beliefs mirror Wright's sermons. I also don't know how cherry picked the sermons of Wright's were that have been touted as reflecting on Obama.

This is true. We would say the same thing about Ron Paul.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If an individual sits through a KKK meeting more than once, it's safe to say they might hold the same views of the speaker.

First, that's a tu quoque argument. Even if Obama shared Wright's radical views, it doesn't excuse Ron Paul for the racist comments in his newsletter.

Second, that someone doesn't disagree with someone's ranting strongly enough to leave a church service (it was a church service, not a KKK meeting, right? you do recognize the difference?) isn't really the same as someone writing (or having ghost written in his name and persona) racist comments.

 

[madfoot]

Can you give me a list of actual libertarians against which we could check such a list?

You want me to list all the libertarians in the world? Are you serious?

This is pretty silly. Paul has been an extremist Libertarian for at least as long as he's been in public life. The newsletters were all about fundy Libertarian views.

What do you mean by "extremist Libertarian"? Aren't we above childish insults?

 

[madfoot]

First, that's a tu quoque argument. Even if Obama shared Wright's radical views, it doesn't excuse Ron Paul for the racist comments in his newsletter.

It is, but it's a valid one. We safely elected Obama, who tacitly endorsed Wright's extremist views, so it shouldn't be an issue now for Ron Paul, who acitly endorsed the extremist views published in his newsletters. And as Skeptic Ginger said, we have the benefit of Obama's writings and speeches, and we know that Wright's views don't match up with Obama's present-day beliefs. We can say the same for Paul.

 

[Kay]

Thought it'd be fun for Paul to point out that he honestly thinks we should have bailed out the aristocratic pigs in the South 150 years ago for taking their slaves. Not to mention it's a complete failure of history, as Lincoln never campaigned on ending slavery completely, and most of the South had already seceded by the time he was inaugurated.

 

[brodski]

You want me to list all the libertarians in the world? Are you serious?

I'm pointing out that even if we did have a list of staff who published the newsletters (Paul has never released that information) they would be declared not to be "true libertarians" due to the contents of the newsletters.
Apparently working and campaigning for a politicians who identifies as such is not enough to qualify. What is?

 

[madfoot]

Thought it'd be fun for Paul to point out that he honestly thinks we should have bailed out the aristocratic pigs in the South 150 years ago for taking their slaves. Not to mention it's a complete failure of history, as Lincoln never campaigned on ending slavery completely, and most of the South had already seceded by the time he was inaugurated.

So he thinks the slaves ought to have been freed without bloodshed. That's naive, not racist.

I'm pointing out that even if we did have a list of staff who published the newsletters (Paul has never released that information) they would be declared not to be "true libertarians" due to the contents of the newsletters.

I never said this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is, but it's a valid one.

No. Tu quoque argumentation is not valid. Nothing about Obama at all is relevant to the issue of Ron Paul's racist comments. It's a fallacious argument. The tu quoque fallacy is a type of irrelevant fallacy.

And as Skeptic Ginger said, we have the benefit of Obama's writings and speeches, and we know that Wright's views don't match up with Obama's present-day beliefs. We can say the same for Paul.

Not really. Ron Paul defended some of the comments in his newsletters (back when he wasn't denying they were his words), and then he denied having written them. He's pretty much all over the place. His own actual statements don't match up with his own actual statements. Again, that he is remaking his public persona for a different audience doesn't argue away the racist comments.

If you want to start another thread on Obama and Rev. Wright, you're free to do so, but whatever you say about that is irrelevant to Ron Paul's comments.

 

[Kay]

So he thinks the slaves ought to have been freed without bloodshed. That's naive, not racist.

Perhaps, though I don't think there was anything in the Constitution which says the Federal government could actually do that circa 1860. Furthermore if true, Cain was naive when he talked about he didn't need to know anything about Ubeki-beki-stan to run the country. And same with Bachmann when she ranted on her believing some woman who told her vaccines are evil. I'll happily place Paul with those two.

 

[brodski]

I never said this.

I made a general prediction, not a claimas to what you have said.
But if, by some miracle, I was able to get Ron Paul to name the racist ghost-writers, publishers and distribution staff he employed, how would you go about determining if any of them were libertarians or not?

 

[madfoot]

No. Tu quoque argumentation is not valid. Nothing about Obama at all is relevant to the issue of Ron Paul's racist comments. It's a fallacious argument. The tu quoque fallacy is a type of irrelevant fallacy.

No, it's not always a fallacy.

Perhaps, though I don't think there was anything in the Constitution which says the Federal government could actually do that circa 1860. Furthermore if true, Cain was naive when he talked about he didn't need to know anything about Ubeki-beki-stan to run the country. And same with Bachmann when she ranted on her believing some woman who told her vaccines are evil. I'll happily place Paul with those two.

Great. Can I include Obama wanting Israel to return to its 1967 borders?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is true. We would say the same thing about Ron Paul.

Yes, we have more than abundant evidence directly from Paul that the views in the newsletters are his own.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do you mean by "extremist Libertarian"? Aren't we above childish insults?

Let me think, what is it you are missing here?

Let's try again. Libertarians come in all degrees. Those that espose the view dogmatically ignoring any evidence to the contrary and adopting the most extreme degree of Libertarian philosophy are extremist Libertarians.

If you don't think Paul falls in that category, cite some of his views that are not extreme.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is, but it's a valid one. We safely elected Obama, who tacitly endorsed Wright's extremist views,

You have presented no evidence whatsoever that this is true. I noted that if it were true, we'd have seen evidence of it besides Obama simply attending Wright's church and befriending the preacher.

so it shouldn't be an issue now for Ron Paul, who acitly endorsed the extremist views published in his newsletters. And as Skeptic Ginger said, we have the benefit of Obama's writings and speeches, and we know that Wright's views don't match up with Obama's present-day beliefs. We can say the same for Paul.

Trouble here is twofold, one, your underlying premise is false and two, the evidence that comes directly from Paul contradicts your conclusion about Paul.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Those quotes are shocking and it is hard for me to understand why anyone would not like Martin Luther King. I want to see the whole article. Is Ron Paul lying? King, like everyone, had his faults and, yes, Morris Childs told his agents in the FBI that King was being seen by Soviet agents and looking into Communism. That is why his hotel was bugged.

Chris Rock can get away with saying on stage the exact same thing that got Jimmy the Greek fired and unemployable. So, let's cut to the chase. Show me a quote from one of these newsletters where Paul specifically says he hates people who have black skin and he judges these people as a group just because of the color of their skin.