• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

I am careful to qualify my words, and to give people the benefit of the doubt. That said, it is crystal clear based on tangible evidence that Paul is (was?) a piece of racist filth.

As Joe has aptly implied, to pretend that Paul isn't (wasn't?) a racist is to pretend there is no such thing as racism.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I have not done that.

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)?
Click to expand...


Sure it's possible. I even doubt that there is any human living among people from different cultures who did not at least have one or more racist thoughts throughout their lifetime. That rather strikes me as normal and a process of learning - the question rather is which side you finally chose after those thoughts, no?

But lets get it straight.

Paul is a believer, which strikes me as rather stupid. But did he introduce any legislation to further that agenda? No.

So let's assume that Paul is a racist or "somewhat racist" for a moment. Did he introduce legislation that is racist in any way? No.

Did he introduce legislation to get rid of still existing racism? Yes.

Are the problems the US and Europe faces in any way related to racial problems? Rather not, me thinks.

So what's the efforts about to portray him as a racist? Fear'n'Smear, I guess. And to reduce his campaign down to a view sentences of newsletters and a book, not his voting history and legislation history. But that's fair game and the absurdity of US elections.

Will it add anything to the fact that Paul will not win? No.

And because of that last sentence there's really nothing more to add to this thread from my side. You're all free to think whatever you want, may it be "Obama the Marxist" since 2008 or "Paul the Racist in 2011/12".
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Sure it's possible. I even doubt that there is any human living among people from different cultures who did not at least have one or more racist thoughts throughout their lifetime.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I'm glad you posted this. I don't view racism (or sexism or whatever-ism) as a yes/no proposition. Shades of grey and all that.

However, one must be consumed by racism to publish the sort of filth that Paul has published. So sorry Oliver, no sale.
 
Oliver said:
Sure it's possible. I even doubt that there is any human living among people from different cultures who did not at least have one or more racist thoughts throughout their lifetime.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about having racist thoughts. I'm talking about expressing them.



Paul is a believer, which strikes me as rather stupid. But did he introduce any legislation to further that agenda? No.
Click to expand...
How is this relevant to the question of his responsibility for the racist comments in his newsletters?

So let's assume that Paul is a racist or "somewhat racist" for a moment. Did he introduce legislation that is racist in any way? No.
Click to expand...
This is the fallacy of arguing from the consequent. That he didn't introduce any racist legislation isn't relevant to whether or not he is responsible for the racist comments in his newsletter and has given an adequate answer to them. (Note: His answer was not to admit he is racist but promises not to enact any policies based on his racism if he were elected president anyway.)

Did he introduce legislation to get rid of still existing racism? Yes.

Are the problems the US and Europe faces in any way related to racial problems? Rather not, me thinks.

So what's the efforts about to portray him as a racist? Fear'n'Smear, I guess. And to reduce his campaign down to a view sentences of newsletters and a book, not his voting history and legislation history. But that's fair game and the absurdity of US elections.

Will it add anything to the fact that Paul will not win? No.

And because of that last sentence there's really nothing more to add to this thread from my side. You're all free to think whatever you want, may it be "Obama the Marxist" since 2008 or "Paul the Racist in 2011/12".
Click to expand...
Same as above.

At most what you're arguing is that you don't care whether or not Ron Paul made racist comments in his newsletter because whether or not he is racist won't affect anything.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
 
Oliver said:
Paul is a believer, which strikes me as rather stupid. But did he introduce any legislation to further that agenda? No.

So let's assume that Paul is a racist or "somewhat racist" for a moment. Did he introduce legislation that is racist in any way? No.

Did he introduce legislation to get rid of still existing racism? Yes.
Click to expand...
Now you're just making stuff up.

Of course the onus isn't on you to prove a negative, and hopefully I'll have time in coming days to rebut your ridiculous statement with facts. But in the meantime, consider the fact that Paul opposes the landmark 1964 civil rights act.
 
varwoche said:
But in the meantime, consider the fact that Paul opposes the landmark 1964 civil rights act.
Click to expand...

Yes. In that earlier book, he said he considers the civil rights movement, the women's rights movements, etc. to be anathema to individual rights.

That's just bizarre. There's a broad consensus that voting by blacks and women, and participation in politics by blacks and women, and removing barriers to opportunities for those groups to get higher education in various fields and become professionals has benefited everyone. I think barring those groups from voting and participating in politics and having barriers to opportunities for members of those groups to develop and share their skills and talents is what's anathema to individual rights.
 
Nova Land said:
The John Birch Society was a key promulgator in the '60s of the idea that MLK was a Communist and the Civil Rights Movement was part of the Communist conspiracy to destroy America. See, for example, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, published by the John Birch Society in 1965 (and available for free online here).
Click to expand...
How is the JBS inaccurate in identifying MLK’s communist association or the fact communists supported the Civil Rights Movement?
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you really think Gary Johnson qualifies as a non-crazy Libertarian Party nominee? I think all those joints he has smoked over his lifetime has killed a lot of brain cells.
 
INRM said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that were to happen I would first suspect Israeli involvement. They have the most to lose from a Ron Paul Administration.
 
varwoche said:
I agree, and I'm glad you posted this. I don't view racism (or sexism or whatever-ism) as a yes/no proposition. Shades of grey and all that.

However, one must be consumed by racism to publish the sort of filth that Paul has published. So sorry Oliver, no sale.
Click to expand...

Your a babe in the woods when it comes to viewing racism.
 
MaGZ said:
Senator Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act. Was Goldwater a racist?
Click to expand...
He certainly allowed his campaign to use racism, especially in the deep south. I clearly remember some of the truly hateful anti-Johnson stuff that went around in 1964. Even if Goldwater wasn't behind it, he never disavowed it. Maybe he wasn't personally racist, but he certainly courted the racist vote.
 
Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hasn't the ship really sunk when Ron Paul's defenders (Oliver et al) pull out "Well, at least he isn't Hitler"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom