Ron Paul's racist comments - Page 17

DVaut1 · #**161** 10-11-2007, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Link

Originally published in 1992, this is a re-post of it to usenet in 1993.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]. That's really bad stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, BUT can we talk about all the racist black people?

This one time...DJ Spinderlla of Salt-n-Pepa was on MTV and told all the African-Americans crowd to go crazy and enjoy their performance. HOW INSENSITIVE. And this didn't bother me in the slightest.

So, clearly, you're overreacting.

elwoodblues · #**162** 10-11-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is possibly the most ridiculous thing that I've ever seen on these boards. How WOULD you define a criminal if not somebody who's been arrested?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who has been convicted, maybe? ANYONE can be arrested. Being arrested is VERY DIFFERENT than being convicted.

Let's put it in the most simple of terms. If you are arrested tomorrow for committing a crime (that you didn't actually commit) are you a criminal?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's referring TO A REPORT IN WHICH IT SAYS 85% OF BLACK MEN IN DC HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Intersting that you choose to move the goal posts from WHAT HE IS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT to something totally unreleated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. Read the whole thing. He* talks about the study of ARREST rates, then turns that magically into CONVICTIONS when he extrapolates that due to police innefficiences it is safe to project that 95% of Black males are criminals. You have to have some sort of an agenda to 1) call all individuals arrested for something "criminals", 2) project an even greater rate of criminality due to police innefficiences, and 3) read those statistics entirely as an indictment of the black males and not, possibly, that black males are arrested sometimes because of the color of the skin and not their conduct (as other studies have demonstrated.)

The full quote:
[ QUOTE ]
The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

*NOTE: when I say "he" I refer to the author not, necessarily, Ron Paul.

theseus51 · #**163** 10-11-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was curious so I did some reading online, and everything I could find, says that in that 2001 Texas Monthly Article, he admitted . . . it was a ghost writer. I couldn't find anything, anywhere, that said he admitted it was him.

So maybe you could cite specific quotes or links. Cause all you have now are vague "he admitted it" citing a source that as far as I can tell, does exactly the opposite. Proves he didn't write the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's see if you can follow along here.

In 2001, he admitted that he DIDN'T write the newsletter.

We both agree on that.

In the same article, it was asked why then, did he assert during his 1996 campaign the opposite, that he did write the newsletter.

To which, he admitted that he kept it a secret that he didn't write it during the 1996 campaign on the advice of aides, and instead chose to represent to voters that he wrote it and in turn, defended it.

Hence, during his 1996 campaign, he claimed the piece as his own, but later in 2001, he admitted he was lying about it at the time on the advice of staff.

Get all that? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't know all the facts in this case, but I'll accept that you believe this is true. That you believe someone else wrote it.

So . . . you knew all this, and labeled your subject "Ron Paul's racist comments"?

SleeperHE · #**164** 10-11-2007, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes if someone could also post a link to a copy of the 2001 Texas Monthly article as well it would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their archive section is by subscription only. You have to go pay to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are a subscriber then?

RedBean · #**165** 10-11-2007, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So doesn't it seem odd to you that the entirety of the body of his published work is at the opposite end of the spectrum message wise? Furthermore it drastically differs stylistically from the linked newsletter? I mean come on read his books, read his online publications. The guy is perma-vomiting liberty and i don't see him claiming an exceptions to this rule...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed odd to me that he would consistently defend the substance of the article over a 10+ year period as accurate "in the context of current events", despite at various times asserting or denying authorship.

If Ron Paul came out and called the comments horrible wrong and racist, I could see your point....but all we have from him is that he thinks they are accurate "in the context of current events".

I just can't see myself supporting someone who thinks the message portrayed by that newsletter as being accurate.

RedBean · #**166** 10-11-2007, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't know all the facts in this case, but I'll accept that you believe this is true. That you believe someone else wrote it.

So . . . you knew all this, and labeled your subject "Ron Paul's racist comments"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you made a faulty assumption.

I believe he wrote it, based on his consistent defense of the article since as being accurate "in context to current events", and refusal to condemn it as inaccurate or racist, and despite his attempts at various times to claim or deny authorship for the purpose of political gain.

Granted, I acknowledge this belief is merely an opinion, an opinion I based on the known facts from credible sources that I listed in the OP.

At worst, I believe he wrote it and is lying now. At best, he didn't write, and was lying then. Either way, he continued to defend the comments as accurate "in context to current events" in both scenarios, which I ultimately find despicable.

SleeperHE · #**167** 10-11-2007, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So doesn't it seem odd to you that the entirety of the body of his published work is at the opposite end of the spectrum message wise? Furthermore it drastically differs stylistically from the linked newsletter? I mean come on read his books, read his online publications. The guy is perma-vomiting liberty and i don't see him claiming an exceptions to this rule...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed odd to me that he would consistently defend the substance of the article over a 10+ year period as accurate "in the context of current events", despite at various times asserting or denying authorship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a link to the exact quote of this, cause i have yet to find a reference to your statement above. All I have is the chron article you link to earlier.

TomVeil · #**168** 10-11-2007, 02:35 PM

OK El, we're done too. If you think that he's taking that, and then somehow jumping to saying that they've all been convicted, and then that they are all criminal and THAT is his definition, then there's no hope. It's clear to me that the writer is saying 85% have been arrested, DC police suck, that # should probably be closer to 95%. But no, you guys spin it saying that he said "95% of blacks are criminal", ignoring that he's discussing arrest stats in DC ONLY during the time in which crime and drugs were overruning the city.

And by the way, don't you think that 95% of people in GENERAL are "semi-criminal or criminal?" I certainly do. Everybody I know breaks the law almost every day. I define criminal as somebody who breaks the law. You say it's somebody who's been convicted. The writer says it's somebody who's been arrested. If a criminal is somebody who's been convicted, then who's a "semi-criminal"?

bobman0330 · #**169** 10-11-2007, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The author is considering that 85% are criminals because they were arrested. No one with common sense would label someone merely arrested a criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this so much I don't even know how to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could start by furnishing your definition of "criminal" and explaining why it isn't the dictionary definition of "a person who commits a crime."

TVMH · #**170** 10-11-2007, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So doesn't it seem odd to you that the entirety of the body of his published work is at the opposite end of the spectrum message wise? Furthermore it drastically differs stylistically from the linked newsletter? I mean come on read his books, read his online publications. The guy is perma-vomiting liberty and i don't see him claiming an exceptions to this rule...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed odd to me that he would consistently defend the substance of the article over a 10+ year period as accurate "in the context of current events", despite at various times asserting or denying authorship.

If Ron Paul came out and called the comments horrible wrong and racist, I could see your point....but all we have from him is that he thinks they are accurate "in the context of current events".

I just can't see myself supporting someone who thinks the message portrayed by that newsletter as being accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you choose.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for keeping Ron Paul's name on prominent display.

After all, it's been said that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and I seriously doubt that Dr. Paul would have a problem dispelling this nonsense with relative ease.

Thanks again! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]