Do You Support the Civil Rights Act?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that you know that the quotes you're talking about were not Ron Paul's since people have pointed that out to you at least twice, yet you continue this [censored]. WTF, man?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course people say "oh, they aren't his..."

What do you expect them to say? "You got us...he's a racist."

The fact is that Paul initially claimed them as his own, and defended them.

Even if his later claim is true, and he didn't author them, he NEVER CONDEMNED them, and continued to defend them as being in context.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's pretend he didn't write them......Doesn't his continued defense of the quotes speak volumes?

How can he defend that drivel, even assuming he didn't write it?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if his later claim is true, and he didn't author them, he NEVER CONDEMNED them, and continued to defend them as being in context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Firing the person who did write them seems like condemnation to me. Your ridiculous attempts to smear this guy are pretty transparent. Jesse Jackson would be impressed at your race-card throwing techniques.

Btw, I'm not voting for Ron Paul, so it's not like I have a stake in trying to preserve his image.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Firing the person who did write them seems like condemnation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that didn't happen.

Did you know he wrote those words in 1992?

Did you know in 1996, 4 years later, he still defended them as his own?

And I can prove it.

Not until almost 6 years later did he "claim" he didn't write them, and "admit" that someone else wrote them.

If he condemned the quotes, why did he continue to claim them as his own even 4 years later?

If you made such a mistake as to allow such racist drivel to be posted under your name, wouldn't you want to clear it up immediately, and not continue to defend them as your own for 4+ years?

Unless, you agreed with them, as apparently Paul did.

These are the facts. The facts that those who slobber over the Racist don't want to address.

Did he supposedly fire this staffer 6-7 years later? Is this even true?

[Borodog]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

-------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com


Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”


Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
---------------------------------------------

Now will you shut the [censored] up? No? Didn't think so. Troll.

[Borodog]

Because RedTroll is trolling this [censored] across 4 threads:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

Thanks for the link. Skimmed over the other thread that went into this debacle. I personally don't see much reason to deem this guy a racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't. I know from personal knowledge there isn't. But aside from my personal knowledge, regardless of how anybody feels about his politics, Ron Paul has literally tens of thousands of written pages and hundreds of hours of taped speeches that can be read and listened to. The crap RedBean is dredging up is unlike ANYTHING else in that body of work. When historians, and not internet trolls, see something like this, it makes them suspicious that something has been interpolated by someone else into the body of work of the writer, like the Jesus accounts in Josephus, or the Lincoln letter to Mrs. Bixby. But to internet trolls, its all just [censored] for the [censored] sling.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that casts some doubt on him "firing a staffer" for writing it, eh? As the claim is now that an outside group wrote it.

FACTS:

1992 - Racial quotes authored by Paul

1996 - When interviewed by the Houston Chronicle, concerning the quotes, Ron Paul defended them as his own, and said they were "in context with current events".

2001 - In an interview with Texas Monthly, he claims a staffer wrote them, and they weren't his words...he accepts moral responsibility, but doesn't condemn the quotes.

Question......if Ron Paul didn't write the words....why did it take him 9 years to say otherwise, and why 4 years later was he still asserting them as his own words?

Question.....the article you cited claims the newsletter was written by anoutside group.....but Paul himself has said in 2001 that a "staffer" wrote it.

Serious questions.....don't run and hide behind ad hominems.

I know it's hard defending a racist like Paul, but there must be some explanation as to why he continued to defend the words as his own even 4 years later....

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
When historians, and not internet trolls, see something like this, it makes them suspicious that something has been interpolated by someone else into the body of work of the writer, like the Jesus accounts in Josephus, or the Lincoln letter to Mrs. Bixby. But to internet trolls, its all just [censored] for the [censored] sling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not just slinging any [censored]. I'm sticking to credible sources and documented facts, using Ron Paul's own words, based on his interviews, and the timeline we can establish.

If anyone is avoiding the facts, tis be you, my friend.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not changing anything. People have the power to kill others. THat's different than having legitimate authority (roughly, a "right") to do so. I'm using these terms to AVOID confusion, since earlier you were apparently conflating "power" and "right"

[/ QUOTE ]

People in other threads have pointed out that AC does not have a problem with killing in self defence, this would seem to be the exact same conflict of interest you like to point out - 'my right to live conflicts with his right to live'.

I fail to see the difference.

And if we follow the any relationship is voluntary logic, does it mean it is morally ok for parents to leave their childs in the forest in a voluntary society?

At some point you will have conflict of rights, I fail to see the big significance of this point? What is the drawn conclusion? That the system doesn't work...does not voluntary society work because of the above conflicts?

[JayTee]

Does anyone in this thread think that Ron Paul handled the issue optimally? I don't. Does that make him a racist? Nope.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


And if we follow the any relationship is voluntary logic, does it mean it is morally ok for parents to leave their childs in the forest in a voluntary society?


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you leave your plasma TV in the forest if you didn't want it anymore?