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

[Undesired Walrus]

Has anyone quoted this yet? Paul, in 1996, justifies racist comments:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.
"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

So why are his fanboys still trying to deny he wrote them?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Has anyone quoted this yet? Paul, in 1996, justifies racist comments:



So why are his fanboys still trying to deny he wrote them?

"but it was 20 years ago!" they cry, as if there is a statute of limitiations on stupidity.

(minor quible, 1996 was 15 years ago)

One other claim that the pualiannas like to make is that "He was delivering poor black babies for free back then"

Which I highly doubt, and is a total non-sequiter.

 

[Nova Land]

... So why are his fanboys still trying to deny he wrote [the newsletter items]?

And why aren't his supporters doing as he suggested -- quoting the items in full -- in order to demonstrate the items aren't racist?

That's one thing I agree with Ron Paul on: if you are quoted out of context, one of the best defenses is to present people with the complete original so that people can see the misrepresentation.

And yet the Paul supporters seem intent on avoiding that. The only complete reprintings of the newsletter items I've seen have been from Paul detractors. It's almost as if even Paul's supporters realize that reprinting the articles so that more people can see them isn't going to do Paul's image much good.

 

[Chaos]

And why aren't his supporters doing as he suggested -- quoting the items in full -- in order to demonstrate the items aren't racist?

That's one thing I agree with Ron Paul on: if you are quoted out of context, one of the best defenses is to present people with the complete original so that people can see the misrepresentation.

And yet the Paul supporters seem intent on avoiding that. The only complete reprintings of the newsletter items I've seen have been from Paul detractors. It's almost as if even Paul's supporters realize that reprinting the articles so that more people can see them isn't going to do Paul's image much good.

That, or the Paulites think he´s so completely beyond reproach that anyone who isn´t swayed by the mere repeated assertion of Saint Ron´s innocence will ignore the evidence anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Has anyone quoted this yet?

Yep. I've been talking about that interview for some time.

Also that interview (in '96 discussing comments in newsletters as late as '92) belies his claim that he was unaware of these comments for 10 years after they were published.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not one to go in for guilt by association, but has everyone here seen the photo making the FB rounds lately showing Ron Paul posing with a white supremacist (former Grand Wizard of the KKK) and Neo Nazi leader?

Here's a link to a blog article with that photo.

http://www.politicalruminations.com/2011/12/sixteen-things-you-should-know-about-ron-paul.html

So is the photo legit? Are these guys who they are claimed to be? Is there some ex-culpatory context? (Perhaps Paul didn't know who they were? It looks like a phone-photo like you might pose for with anyone in a crowd.)

 

[Suddenly]

Note to Paul fanboys: Go check out Gary Johnson. His positions are similar to Paul's, and he isn't a senile cynical crackpot with massive amounts of baggage.

I don't agree with a lot of what Johnson believes, but he strikes me as competent and qualified. Then again, knowing the LP they will probably nominate some Michael Badnarik quality candidate instead. That or they will saddle Johnson with a whack-job running mate.

Heck, I like Johnson so far. I'll probably vote for Obama but absent some future revelation or Palin-quality VP choice I could vote for Johnson and feel OK about it.

ETA: which given my historical hostility towards libertarianism in general and the LP in particular is saying something...

 

[varwoche]

Note to Paul fanboys: Go check out Gary Johnson. His positions are similar to Paul's, and he isn't a senile cynical crackpot with massive amounts of baggage.

I don't agree with a lot of what Johnson believes, but he strikes me as competent and qualified. Then again, knowing the LP they will probably nominate some Michael Badnarik quality candidate instead. That or they will saddle Johnson with a whack-job running mate.

Indeed. Maybe we can get one non-crazy LP nominee in my lifetime. I'd be glad to see that even though I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Racism is wrong because racism is a lie. In fact, race itself is a lie. It is a meaningless way of defining people.

There is a vast and wide difference between a racist and someone who says something that is racially insensitive.

If someone is critical of MLK they are only insensitive. It does not make them liars. The man was only human (MLK, I mean).

The fact that people are quick to pull the trigger and label someone as a racist tells me that such people are hiding something about themselves. It makes me want Ron Paul to win just to spite such people.

This is something new in the news:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/30/9829590-super-pac-jumps-to-pauls-defense



Democracy does not work in the United States because in order for Democracy to work, people have to be educated and informed. Most people in the USA are neither educated nor informed. People want to jump on a self-congratuatory bandwagon and feel that they are part of a self-rightous collective. It is pathetic.

 

[Suddenly]

Racism is wrong because racism is a lie. In fact, race itself is a lie. It is a meaningless way of defining people.

Okay, except sometimes perception has to trump reality. Someone that claims that race shouldn't be a factor in life is idealistic. Someone that claims race isn't a factor is naive or at worst disingenuous.

There is a vast and wide difference between a racist and someone who says something that is racially insensitive.

Hardly. The two are not mutually exclusive and one is evidence of the other. A difference perhaps, but not necessarily vast and wide.

If someone is critical of MLK they are only insensitive. It does not make them liars. The man was only human (MLK, I mean).

"Hate whitey day?"

The fact that people are quick to pull the trigger and label someone as a racist tells me that such people are hiding something about themselves. It makes me want Ron Paul to win just to spite such people.

Ahhh... the old "If you call someone out for being a racist then you must be a racist" argument. Never mind all the evidence.

This is something new in the news:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/30/9829590-super-pac-jumps-to-pauls-defense

Right up there with "Some of my best friends are..." So since he didn't violate his Hippocratic Oath in 1972 by refusing to deliver a black baby he's not a racist. This might go to show he isn't a hard core racist, but that is about it.

Democracy does not work in the United States because in order for Democracy to work, people have to be educated and informed. Most people in the USA are neither educated nor informed. People want to jump on a self-congratuatory bandwagon and feel that they are part of a self-rightous collective. It is pathetic.

You have just described the Paul movement.

 

[Chaos]

Someone that claims race isn't a factor is naive or at worst disingenuous.

Technically, race isn´t a factor - racism is.

 

[Molinaro]

Will anyone step up to defend the following found in a book Ron Paul wrote himself in 1987? From "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years" by Ron Paul:

The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found,

Every year new groups organize to demand their 'rights'. White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

From CNN

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is a vast and wide difference between a racist and someone who says something that is racially insensitive.

That's another rehashing of your attempt to redefine racism so that it doesn't include the comments in Ron Paul's newsletters.

It didn't work before, and it's not working now.

 

[mortimer]

From CNN

Well, you know, it was probably ghostwritten, and even if it wasn't, it was such a long time ago, and the Fed and 9/11 Truth, and such and such!

 

[Molinaro]

I will give him points for originality. I don't recall ever hearing someone suggest that victims of sexual harassment in the workplace should quit, rather than being protected by law.

I can't wrap my head around that view.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver,
Didn't we go through this dance with you four years ago? IIRC Ron stands for almost nothing you believe in, but you are so fervently anti-USA intervention as regards foreign policy, that you'll accept anything on the negative side just so long as he wants to close down US bases and withdraw US military support in almost all corners of the world.

Anti-Vaccination?
Anti-Abortion?
Paranoid Anti-Government?
911 Truth?

And now, add to that the fact that he's either a blatant racist (which I personally believe) or that, at minimum, he can be seen to have been pandering to racists in order to build up his war chest. I'm not sure which is worse, frankly. Neither person gets my support, my dollars, nor my vote.

Those things are not you, Oliver! Yet, you hand wave them away and accept any silly-assed excuses he offers. The guy's a panderer and a professional egg-sucker. He has the same goal as every politician - to fleece the sheep sufficiently to get re-elected. He's merely more blatant about it and he's been caught at it. He simply selected a particularly disgusting stinky filthy bunch of sheep to fleece. Now that he's taken "seriously", he's backing away from those earlier stands. Cynics might say that that's because he's found a bigger flock of not so disgusting stinky filthy sheep who can fleece for even more donations.

"I like Ron Paul because he's a real straight shooter", say the blinded followers. Yeah, he lets everyone know how bad earmarks and pork are, then he earmarks blatant porkbarrel legislation to get money for his district. "Hey, I'm agin' it, but man, I'd be dumb not to line up at the trough with the others, wouldn't I?" Yeah, a real honest guy. A guy who can tell you what he had for breakfast at his first meal in the House restaurant, but can't remember who wrote his money-making columns for him!

Nonsense. You people believing in this sack of lies should really be ashamed of yourselves. If you believe in non-interventionism or libertarian policies go out and find someone who has those beliefs, ... for real. Or, sign up now in this thread that you support and believe in his Pro-Life Anti-Vax nonsense. Those are far bigger issues than whether he thinks government is too big or whether he's anti-war.

I guess you completely misunderstand why I like the guy.

While it is true that his interpretation of foreign intervention by trade and diplomacy rather than sanctions and military force - unless congress declares so - sounded very appealing to me and was the very reason to get interested into his person, his views on foreign policy is just a portion of positions I think are very reasonable in light of the circumstances.

But first of all: Ron Paul will not win. Even if he wins in Iowa, the media and party will ignore that, downplay it - or even deny it and declare Romney the winner either way.

But even if he would win the presidency, his only function he would have would be to veto - because he has virtually no support from Democrats or Republicans. So to be afraid of a toothless tiger sounds pretty laughable to me. Or sad.

However, it would certainly force the political landscape to accept that the times have changed concerning the electorates views. A fact that American politicians seem to willingly ignore all the time playing their own games - no matter what.

By now it should be very obvious that:

- The debt is undermining stability in terms of social aspects as well as national security and foreign policy.

- Thus, a bankrupt US nation for example means: Israel will be completely on its own. And Israels enemies are already waiting for this to finally become reality. A fact that people should realize whenever they call Paul being "Anti-Israel".

- China is about [or already is] to be the sole Superpower left, a fact that nobody in here should be all that happy about - while the formerly independent US, at the same time, virtually turns itself into a slave of Chinese interests. So even that I hated US foreign policies in the past, I would even more hate China doing the same thing ... without any scruple and any sense of scale or opposition at all.

- Also concerning the debt, there will be no more support for bailouts no matter how serious it will be ... unless the FED will secretly borrow and thus print trillions of Dollars again, a power they should not have in every sense of the idea of: "We the people".

- Then I like his view that Government should stay out of personal decisions, no matter if people choose to have a gay life, what religion a person favors, what kind of insurance one wants to have - or does not want at all. As long it does not violate or threatens other peoples rights and life.

So to come back to racism here:

It does not matter to me whether he wrote, read, approved the newsletter back then. What matters to me are the things mentioned above plus the fact that I never heard him say anything racist. Nor did I heard anyone mention that he actually heard Paul saying something racial. So the whole racist-vaccines nitpicking and whining flies completely over my head because...

1. He will not be elected.
2. The US (and the west in general) has much bigger problems than racism.
3. He wont be elected.

Is there really something missing I should add???

 

[Oystein]

Oliver, this thread isn't about the political views or prospects of Ron Paul. It's about whether he has made racist remarks. You must have missed the entirety of this thread if you truly "never heard him say anything racist. Nor ... heard anyone mention that he actually heard Paul saying something racial". Really!? I suggest you re-read from the start.

Maybe you disagree with some of the assertions made here about Paul "saying" something racist. You might argue

• that it wasn't him who said these things and that he isn't politically responsible for what people write in his name and to the benefit of his own privare purse
• or that the things quoted in this thread are not racist

But speculating about what a Paul presidency would be like is missing that topic completely.

Oh, and foolmewunz listed a few things that Paul stands for that, so he claims, you do not. Care to address these, if you choose to stay off-topic?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, this thread isn't about the political views or prospects of Ron Paul. It's about whether he has made racist remarks. You must have missed the entirety of this thread if you truly "never heard him say anything racist. Nor ... heard anyone mention that he actually heard Paul saying something racial". Really!? I suggest you re-read from the start.

Maybe you disagree with some of the assertions made here about Paul "saying" something racist. You might argue

• that it wasn't him who said these things and that he isn't politically responsible for what people write in his name and to the benefit of his own privare purse
• or that the things quoted in this thread are not racist

But speculating about what a Paul presidency would be like is missing that topic completely.

Oh, and foolmewunz listed a few things that Paul stands for that, so he claims, you do not. Care to address these, if you choose to stay off-topic?

I am on topic, auch wenn ich aufgrund FMW`s konkreter Fragestellung ein wenig weit ausgeholt habe, so to speak. But my positions still are - and are also the reasons why I don't care about the lousy accusations:

1. He will not win
2. There is no broad or convincing evidence for racism
3. If the Newsletter is all his opponents achieved to come up with: Bravo, Dr. Paul
4. He has no chance to win even if he does

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So to be afraid of a toothless tiger sounds pretty laughable to me. Or sad.

Nah--it's just you arguing against a strawman position. None of us have said we fear Ron Paul. In fact, I hope he wins the nomination precisely because he's unelectable.

I don't think he stands any real chance of winning just within the GOP anyway.

But he's still responsible for the racist comments published in his newsletters in his name. He still hasn't given anything like an adequate explanation of them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1. He will not be elected.
2. The US (and the west in general) has much bigger problems than racism.
3. He wont be elected.

The fact that he won't be elected and that the U.S. might have bigger problems than racism doesn't mean Ron Paul isn't responsible for the racist comments in his newsletters or that he (or you) have adequately explained them.

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right--not even if the other wrongs are larger or more important than the one in question.

And whether or not Ron Paul is electable is irrelevant to the question of the racist comments. He might not be electable, and still be a racist. (In fact, to some extent his past where he made racist comments and entertained nutty conspiracy theories is partly why many of believe he won't be elected.)

It doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the racist comments made in his name in his newsletters.