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

[Skeptic Ginger]

1. He will not win

Agreed.

2. There is no broad or convincing evidence for racism

Yes, there is. You seem to be, like Bill, redefining racism to specifically exclude Paul's comments.

3. If the Newsletter is all his opponents achieved to come up with: Bravo, Dr. Paul

This is a false claim. Pauls' comments about blacks outside the newsletters reflect a racist view that black males are thieves, and that poor blacks are lazy and looking for a free lunch.

4. He has no chance to win even if he does

Agreed.

The reason Paul can't win is he is all about a fantasy ideology and none about reality substance.

 

[varwoche]

I am on topic...
1. He will not win

True but off topic.

2. There is no broad or convincing evidence for racism

Laughable, in an alternate universe sort of way.

3. If the Newsletter is all his opponents achieved to come up with: Bravo, Dr. Paul

Except the newsletter isn't all there is. Please do read the thread. I suggest you familarize yourself with the John Birch Society first.

4. He has no chance to win even if he does

True agan, off topic again.

Weak.

 

[Beat]

There are a lot of people talking about Ron Paul's anti-vaccine, anti-abortion, and truther views. I thought I would add this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/ron_paul_quackery_enabler_part_ii.php
He also wants to remove clinical standards from medicine. In other words, he wants to remove the scientific method from medicine. He has this silly idea that the market can decide which medicine is the best based off of what makes money.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are a lot of people talking about Ron Paul's anti-vaccine, anti-abortion, and truther views. I thought I would add this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/ron_paul_quackery_enabler_part_ii.php
He also wants to remove clinical standards from medicine. In other words, he wants to remove the scientific method from medicine. He has this silly idea that the market can decide which medicine is the best based off of what makes money.

There are a lot of coffin nails to be found in those links. Wow.

 

[Chaos]

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

True, but not because of the conspiranoid BS you suggested; it´s because he is nuts, a hypocrite, or both, and too many voters are aware of that for him to have a chance.

2. There is no broad or convincing evidence for racism

Well, yeah, if you discount all the broad convincing evidence presented, there isn´t any.

3. If the Newsletter is all his opponents achieved to come up with: Bravo, Dr. Paul

Yes, bravo, Dr Paul, because you endeared yourself to the racists, while your worshippers will deny your racism no matter what happens.

4. He has no chance to win even if he does

But not because of the reasons you claim.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

True but off topic.


Laughable, in an alternate universe sort of way.
Except the newsletter isn't all there is. Please do read the thread. I suggest you familarize yourself with the John Birch Society first.
True agan, off topic again.

Weak.

I think a more accurate criticism is "irrelevant".

That Ron Paul is electable or unelectable has no relevance to whether or not he is or was racist, or whether or not he has adequately explained the racist comments written in his name in his newsletter.

Observations about Ron Paul's electability are on the general topic of Ron Paul as a candidate for the GOP nomination. And the relationship of these comments and his poor explanation of them to his electability is certainly on topic. (But that's not what Oliver was talking about.)

By analogy, if someone were committing an action in a building and we were discussing the morality of that action as a debate topic, pointing out that the building was about to explode for unrelated reasons really isn't relevant to the question, even though it's on topic--at least the general topic.

In a way, Oliver is trying to make an argument from the consequences. (We need not resolve the question of Ron Paul's racism because he won't be elected president.) That doesn't really address the question itself.

 

[INRM]

There are a lot of powerful interests who are afraid of Ron Paul. As he does well in the polls, they will resort to increasingly brazen acts of character assassination.

There is a possibility that if he gets close to winning the nomination, he'll be assassinated.

 

[Chaos]

There are a lot of powerful interests who are afraid of Ron Paul. As he does well in the polls, they will resort to increasingly brazen acts of character assassination.

There is a possibility that if he gets close to winning the nomination, he'll be assassinated.

I missed you.

I REALLY needed somebody to post the most hare-brainedly paranoid BS imaginable in this thread.

 

[Triterope]

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.

Which is exactly how Barack Obama handled the Jeremiah Wright controversy, in the example I gave earlier. He explained his relationship with Wright in its fuller context of their personal friendship, the many positive things Wright had done in his life, and the perspective he came from having grown up under indignities like the Jim Crow laws.

Public figures love to whine that they've been "taken out of context" whenever some unflattering quote circulates. Few of them make the effort to establish that context. Whether you like Obama or not, you have to admit he skillfully defused that controversy.

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.

Which is Ron Paul's real problem here. Unlike Obama's relationship with Wright, there's no wider perspective that's going to make those newsletter statements tolerable. If we try to zoom out from the ugly part of Ron Paul's past, all we see is how big the ugly part really is.

 

[Tricky]

There are a lot of powerful interests who are afraid of Ron Paul. As he does well in the polls, they will resort to increasingly brazen acts of character assassination.

Hmm... Using the exact text of articles written, with permission, under his name. That's a new form of character assassination I'm unfamiliar with. Usually it involves lies.

There is a possibility that if he gets close to winning the nomination, he'll be assassinated.

That's a scenario that we're not likely to see. But frankly, I find Ron Paul supporters (including my brother-in-law, a truther anarchist) to be much more scary than the average American.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Based on this article about stuff from one of Ron Paul's earlier books, I don't even find it credible that Paul didn't write the newsletter comments in question himself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Based on this article about stuff from one of Ron Paul's earlier books, I don't even find it credible that Paul didn't write the newsletter comments in question himself.

Here's a link to the book online:

Freedom Under Siege - The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years; by Ron Paul

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hmm... Using the exact text of articles written, with permission, under his name. That's a new form of character assassination I'm unfamiliar with. Usually it involves lies.

Self-inflicted character assassination. Maybe INRM means that the person most afraid of Ron Paul is Ron Paul?

 

[Oliver]

Based on this article about stuff from one of Ron Paul's earlier books, I don't even find it credible that Paul didn't write the newsletter comments in question himself.

I completely agree. After reading the passages myself, I'm convinced that it's almost an exact copy of "Mein Kampf".

 

[noch1Narr]

...so would it be alright to refer to this "candidate" as Adolfron, the red-faced reign-dear?

 

[Oliver]

...so would it be alright to refer to this "candidate" as Adolfron, the red-faced reign-dear?

Absolutely, yes.

I prefer to call him Dr. Mengele from now on.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I completely agree. After reading the passages myself, I'm convinced that it's almost an exact copy of "Mein Kampf".

That's the same argument that's been made several times: if it isn't the KKK or nazism (or if it doesn't explicit say "I hate blacks") that it can't be racism.

It's yet another attempt to redefine the term "racism" in an unconventional way such that it doesn't apply to Ron Paul's writings.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Absolutely, yes.

I prefer to call him Dr. Mengele from now on.

See above. Same thing.

It's the "extreme man" fallacy (a subtype of the strawman fallacy). You can easily defeat an extreme position that no one here actually holds. Ron Paul is not Hitler. Well done.

Unfortunately, it fails utterly to respond to the actual claim people have been making: Ron Paul is responsible for racist comments and has failed to give an adequate explanation for them.

 

[Oliver]

That's the same argument that's been made several times: if it isn't the KKK or nazism (or if it doesn't explicit say "I hate blacks") that it can't be racism.

It's yet another attempt to redefine the term "racism" in an unconventional way such that it doesn't apply to Ron Paul's writings.

No, no. Your attempt to make the opposite case, namely to make an elephant out of a mouse, as we use to say in Nazi-Germany, makes complete sense in light of what problems the west faces. Just imagine Dr. Mengele being the president: After a view weeks we would have slavery again. Maybe the US just continues to flow down the drain of irrelevance, but thank God we at least prevented him from finishing what Hitler started. Thank you!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, no. Your attempt to make the opposite case, namely to make an elephant out of a mouse,

I have not done that.

as we use to say in Nazi-Germany, makes complete sense in light of what problems the west faces. Just imagine Dr. Mengele being the president:

More of the same. Your ability to prove that Ron Paul is not Dr. Mengele or Hitler or a Klansman is not disputed.

Your inability to respond to the charges that Ron Paul is responsible for racist comments in his newsletter, and that he has failed to give an adequate explanation for them is the problem.

Do you think it is impossible for someone to make racist comments if they are not Dr. Mengele (or his moral equivalent)?