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

[Alferd_Packer]

All right. I think we're agreed he voted against the 1983 bill.

I think we're also agreed he voted for two amendments to the 1979 bill.

Which still leaves us with the question: did he actually vote for the 1979 bill, as has been alleged? So far no evidence to this effect has been presented.

If it's true that he voted for the bill, someone should be able to find and post evidence that he did. The fact that so far no one has done so -- and that Ron Paul apparently has not provided evidence that he did so -- suggests that he likely did not.

I think the 1979 bill died in committee

 

[Oliver]

That he didn't introduce any racist legislation isn't relevanthttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

 

[varwoche]

Regarding Paul's appearance with the John Birch Society:

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

While there's no doubt that JBS is nuttier than an almond orchard, I'm surprised to discover a dearth of racism evident in their publications, past or present. My recollections are apparently false.

I think less of Paul for pandering to JBS, but I retract as evidence of racism.

 

[Bill Thompson]

If there was no racism in the USA, Paul's comments would be dismissed. People are too sensitive and too quick on the draw to label any comment that shows insensitivity to touchy subjects as being "racist".

Real racist propaganda is much different. I still think you have no idea what that looks like. Otherwise, you would not be crying foul so much about what Ron Paul may or may not have written.

 

[Babbylonian]

If there was no racism in the USA, Paul's comments would be dismissed.

If there was no racism in the US, the racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletters wouldn't exist.

Real racist propaganda is much different.

I would mention the words "No True Scotsman" but I don't think most Scots are racist...

 

[Nova Land]

I think the 1979 bill died in committee

I think that's correct. (It's what the Wolfensberger essay seems to say.)

So to sum up:

1. There is at least one confirmed instance (1983) when Ron Paul voted against making MLK Day a federal holiday.

2. There is so far no known instance of Ron Paul voting to make MLK Day a federal holiday. RazOrama's post claiming Paul had done so appears to have been false, based on a misunderstanding about the difference between voting for an amendment to a bill and voting for the bill itself.

 

[Nova Land]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

As you can see, the congressional record shows that Ron Paul voted for MLK day.

It seems you were mistaken. The link you gave was to Ron Paul voting to amend the bill. There is no record of him voting to pass the bill.

Thus it is reasonable to believe that he did not write the statements in the newsletter about "Hate Whitey Day."

And since your belief that Ron Paul had voted in favor of the bill has turned out to be false, it is once again reasonable to believe that he did write the statements -- or that he was aware of the statements ghost-written for him and felt no need to change what was written since they were an accurate reflection of what he wanted published in his newsletter.

In fact, it is likely that whoever wrote those statements did not know enough about the positions Paul supported at the time to accurately reflect them in the writing.

Since the person who wrote that item got Ron Paul's voting record correct, it appears the person did indeed know Ron Paul and his positions pretty well.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a well-reasoned reply to the logical arguments I've put forth.

Oh wait--no it's not.

Your reasoning is still fallacious in the ways I've explained.

ETA: BAck to the point, do you disagree? Do think it's impossible for anyone who has not introduced racist legislation to have made racist comments? (Or, more to the actual criticism: to have failed to respond adequately to the fact that racist comments were made in his name in his newsletter?) What is the logical connection? When he put out the newsletters in question, he wasn't a member of Congress. How would his future action (or inaction) determine retroactively whether or not he made racist comments?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If there was no racism in the USA, Paul's comments would be dismissed.

That's not true the way you intended it to be true.

It's trivially true as a tautology (since Ron Paul's racist comments are a type of racism in the USA, it would show that the condition hasn't been met).

People are too sensitive and too quick on the draw to label any comment that shows insensitivity to touchy subjects as being "racist".

Nope. His referring to MLK Day as "Hate Whitey Day" is blatantly racist.

Real racist propaganda is much different.

This is the same approach you've been trying repeatedly. Attempting to redefine racism so it doesn't include the racist comments in question is simply the No True Scotsman fallacy (a form of circular reasoning or question-begging).

At best, it's a two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy. That there are worse examples of racism than the racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletter does not mean that those comments weren't racist.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So is there nothing short of being a Nazi or KKK member that is "racist"? (How is that not a strawman argument since no one here has claimed Ron Paul is "on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member"? Seriously, no one has accused him of doing violence against blacks, or even of advocating violence against blacks.)

This is pretty much the same logical problem as your redefining racism to be limited to statements that explicitly express hatred of a race.

"Out of touch" is just disingenuous spin. He has offered inconsistent and inadequate responses to questions about the racist comments made in his name in his newsletter.

You are out of touch.

I cannot find anything in what you wrote here that has any connection with reality.

Paul is blunt. Paul is often telling the truth, albiet it might sound mean. I would not call that racist. Racist comments are ones that are logically untrue, not ones that are mean or insensitive.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Nope. His referring to MLK Day as "Hate Whitey Day" is blatantly racist.

Nope. It is one take on it. He is not wrong. Lots of black people are racists.

Trust me. Lots of black people are racist. It is sometimes difficult not to be.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As you can see, the congressional record shows that Ron Paul voted for MLK day. Thus it is reasonable to believe that he did not write the statements in the newsletter about "Hate Whitey Day."

There's a leap in logic. The newsletter article was written in his name and in his persona. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume he wrote it. (He wasn't a member of Congress at the time.)

This does not excuse letting statements like that out under his name in any way, but does lend credibility to Ron Paul's current denial of his writing them.

OK. But even if we accept that these comments were ghost written for him, don't you think his response has been horribly inconsistent and inadequate? Back in '96, he didn't deny writing them, but tried to argue that they weren't racist because they were taken out of context. Later he denied that he wrote them but that he was morally responsible for them. Later he denied even that--he even denied knowing about them, and is unable or unwilling to say how it came to be that he was unaware of words written in his name and persona by some ghost writer.

As for his views, read the full text of the 1988 book quoted up-thread, and see a good overview of his views, which haven't changed much since that book was penned.

He seems mildly racist and overtly homophobic in that book. I find those positions consistent with his writing more blatantly racist comments in a newsletter with a smaller audience of like-minded people. As I mentioned, that book makes me less willing to accept his claim that he didn't write the comments himself.

He does use ill-advised comparisons, such as AIDS to illustrate his concept of accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, but overall the message is simple:

I don't think those comments were meant to be an example of some general principle or any sort of "comparison". I think he was expressing the view that he thinks it's wrong to spend public money to help AIDS victims. (He couched it in terms of a strawman argument: arguing against the position that AIDS victims have a right to publicly-funded assistance, as if anything we do for the general welfare must be expressed as a "right" or else it's a bad idea.)

 

[Bill Thompson]

Joe, you are arguing against facts. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Bill Thompson]

If there was no racism in the US, the racist comments in Ron Paul's newsletters wouldn't exist.

But his comments were not racist.

I am suspicious of people who think they are. There is some psychology at play here where people are over compensating for their own failings and faults.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Paul is blunt. Paul is often telling the truth, albiet it might sound mean. I would not call that racist. Racist comments are ones that are logically untrue, not ones that are mean or insensitive.

So you think MLK is "Hate whitey day"? You think that's the truth? Really? That's your argument?

You think it's true that black males are more fleet of foot? And from the book, do you think civil rights, women's rights, etc. are somehow anathema to individual rights?

I think your argument here is that if you believe the racist comment is true, then it's not racist. Of course that's false.

I note yet again that you are trying to re-define racism in an unconventional way such that the comments in question aren't racist. Since you keep doing this, I will cite the Merriam-Webster definitions of the term "racism". These are an accurate reflection of conventional usage:

Racism:
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

Note: your assertion that the truth value of a statement is what determines whether or not it's racist is not part of the definition.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But his comments were not racist.

Saying that teenage black males can be "unbelievably fleet of foot" isn't racist?

Referring to MLK Day as "annual Hate Whitey Day" isn't racist?

You're obviously not using the language conventionally. It's difficult if not impossible to converse when you're using your own private unconventional meaning of a word.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, you are arguing against facts. Facts are stubborn things.

Bill, you're simply misusing the language.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Referring to MLK Day as "annual Hate Whitey Day" isn't racist?

Lots of black people hate white people. I imagine lots of black people would think of MLK day as hate whitey day. Ron Paul is just telling the truth. His comment is not really racist. You are too quick on the draw to label someone as a racist. I think you are overcompensating for your own faults perhaps.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Saying that teenage black males can be "unbelievably fleet of foot" isn't racist?

Christ, we have been over this twice already.

no, that is not racist.

Blacks suffer from sickle cell anemia. Is it racist to say so?

 

[varwoche]

Joe, you are arguing against facts. Facts are stubborn things.

Bogus in the extreme. JTG's posts are supported by proven facts, as opposed to the vacuous nonsense we're getting from the Paul supporters, you included.