Ron Paul's racist comments

[W brad]

Does anyone find it odd that David Duke is a big time supporter of Ron Paul?

After seeing this mentioned on Democratic Underground I googled it and was surprised at all I found. Out of respect for the management of 2+2, I will not provide any links.

In fairness, you can not control who your supporters are when you run for president. But it is odd.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the statement '95% of blacks are criminal" (paraphrase) What came before that is completly being ignored. He said the D.C. statistics say 85% are criminals and knowing how inefficient they are, he felt the number was probably more like 95%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul also wrote:

<font color="red">As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." </font>

Of course, he wasn't using any statistic to assert that point. Just good old fashioned bigotry. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Will he advocate enslaving the black people again? No, he won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, in many minds only slavery is racist, anything short is fair game.

Many Paul followers have said repeatedly that they don't think his bigoted comments are racist, out of their blind faith support of the man responsible for the bigoted diatribe, rather than being capable of saying "the guy was wrong", they have to rationalize it away to preserve the perception of Ron Paul's infallability, when the simple truth is the through the '90s, the guy had some obviously bigoted views on blacks.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone find it odd that David Duke is a big time supporter of Ron Paul?

[/ QUOTE ]

No? Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The other article doesn't seem to make it clear that he actually wrote the statements.


[/ QUOTE ]

During his 1996 campaign, Paul defended the statements as his own.

During his 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he admitted that wasn't the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like they were discussing statements in his news deal (which, I thought, was gost written).

[/ QUOTE ]

According to an article published in 2007, after Paul intended to run for president...using unnamed sources and of dubious credibility. In other words, damage control.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone find it odd that David Duke is a big time supporter of Ron Paul?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured him to be Paul's running mate. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No sweat. I'll limit further discussion in the future to 75 posts per day or less. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

My deepest apologies, but I was unaware of this rule, as it is not mentioned anywhere at all. I am now aware of it.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No sweat. I'll limit further discussion in the future to 75 posts per day or less. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

My deepest apologies, but I was unaware of this rule, as it is not mentioned anywhere at all. I am now aware of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the FAQ is updated, I think it'll be called the "Redbean rule."

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man."



[/ QUOTE ]

What context was this written in? This statement may be prejudiced if he's referring to black people as a whole, but I don't see how it is bigoted in any way. From my own experiences I can honestly say that I don't think Dr. Paul is that far off base with this comment.

EDIT: Not towards all black people in this country, but there are certain segments of the population that this statement could apply to.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The other being that him being racist is about as relevant as his skin color, his sexual orientation, and his religion. As long as none of the above effect his policies and ideas in regards to the Federal government, I don't really care.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that him potentially being a racist doesn't seem to matter to many of his followers, that's been adequately expressed by many already in their blind faith in the man, and in some cases, their agreement with his views on race as expressed in the newsletter.

It's an opinion I don't agree with, but I certainly respect their right to hold it, and that some folks don't mind whether or not he is racist.

The initial discussion grew out out of *my* opinion that I just couldn't support a guy who appears to hold racist views based on what he expressed in his newsletter.

And while some can say it doesn't affect his politics, as they are based on his adherence to the constitution....one has to start to wonder if that is in reality a smokescreen to justify the underlying racist motivation behind his politics....considering that constitutionality is the excuse for wanting to repeal the Civil Rights act, despite it being directly in line with his views on race from the newsletter....and combined with the NAACP and other similar groups giving Dr. Paul bad marks for his voting record, while white power type organizations and guys like David Duke give him good marks based on his voting record.

In other words, one has to wonder if Ron Paul is a constitutionalist regardless of his personal views on race.....or is Ron Paul a constituitionalist because of his personal views on race?

After all, as we saw his behavior in the 1996 campign, when he admittedly lied to voters for political gain.....in Ron Paul's mind, "the end justify the means".

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the statement '95% of blacks are criminal" (paraphrase) What came before that is completly being ignored. He said the D.C. statistics say 85% are criminals and knowing how inefficient they are, he felt the number was probably more like 95%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul also wrote:

<font color="red">As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." </font>

Of course, he wasn't using any statistic to assert that point. Just good old fashioned bigotry. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Will he advocate enslaving the black people again? No, he won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, in many minds only slavery is racist, anything short is fair game.

Many Paul followers have said repeatedly that they don't think his bigoted comments are racist, out of their blind faith support of the man responsible for the bigoted diatribe, rather than being capable of saying "the guy was wrong", they have to rationalize it away to preserve the perception of Ron Paul's infallability, when the simple truth is the through the '90s, the guy had some obviously bigoted views on blacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he had memories of LA in the wake of the Rodney King verdict.