Ron Paul's racist comments - Page 14

TomVeil · #**131** 10-11-2007, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Racism is viewing people who share the same skin color strictly as a group and asserting that they are all alike, rather than judging them based on their individual characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even what racism is. That's STEROTYPING. Racism is believing that one race is inherently BETTER than another because of genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely going on the definition of racism as given by Ron Paul himself in April, 2007.

Paul wrote:
<font color="red">Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
</font>

One could thus deduce that using Dr. Paul's 2007 own definition of racism, the writings in his 1992 newsletter constitute racism.

Ship it... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been watching you fumble your way around these boards with the same crap for the last few days, so I'll stop responding to you after this.

You think that somehow he's DEFINING racism instead of talking about the effects of racism. People who are racist DO sterotype other races. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES THEM RACIST. Believing that those races are INFERIOR is what makes them racist.

I can't believe the amount of time and effort you're putting forth on this board to "convince" people that Paul is racist. It's like if you say it enough, you'll just be able to bypass the fact that it's not TRUE and be able to say "Everybody knows Paul is racist".

RedBean · #**132** 10-11-2007, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Welcome to....Politics?

pol·i·ti·cian
–noun
1. a person who is active in party politics.
2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3. a person who holds a political office.
4. a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5. an expert in politics or political government.
6. a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, as was my original assertion....to which RonPaulNation disagreed and asserted this wasn't the case with their good Doctor, exclaiming about the "man of character".

When I refuted it with the situation regarding his racial newsletter, and the situation that surrounded it with his lying about it for political gain.....this discussion ensued.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Money2Burn · #**133** 10-11-2007, 01:34 PM

Does anyone have a link to the actual newsletter published? I would like to read the whole thing and not just the excerpts from the Chron.com article.

Money2Burn · #**134** 10-11-2007, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not even what racism is. That's STEROTYPING. Racism is believing that one race is inherently BETTER than another because of genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you STEREOTYPE one race as 95% criminals, a race that it is rational to fear, suggest that it is okay to treat the juvenilles of that race differently in the criminal justice system because they are bigger (and therefore more "adult"???), and suggest that the parents of that race raise their children to hate (whereas not a single person of your race does) ---- those are RACIST STEREOTYPES.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it considered stereotyping if he is using legitimate statistics for his classification?

RedBean · #**135** 10-11-2007, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you could accept just this we would be fine.

1) ghostwriter messes up.
2) Paul takes bad advice and claims article as his own.
3) Paul comes clean about the whole ordeal.

He screwed up. Who cares? Every politician has something like this in their record. But I dont see the racism in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one version. Another version is:

1. Ron Paul writes newsletter in 1992.
2. Ron Paul defends newsletter in 1996.
3. Ron Paul distances himself from previous newsletter in 2001 for damage control by lying about initially writing it.

RonPaulNation chooses to believe the first possibility because of their opinion of the man. Others may choose to believe the second possibility due to their opinion of the man.

And all that aside, if you don't see the racism in the actual newsletter itself, regardless of who you think wrote it...well, then I just don't know what to tell you.

MuresanForMVP · #**136** 10-11-2007, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Welcome to....Politics?

pol·i·ti·cian
–noun
1. a person who is active in party politics.
2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3. a person who holds a political office.
4. a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5. an expert in politics or political government.
6. a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, as was my original assertion....to which RonPaulNation disagreed and asserted this wasn't the case with their good Doctor, exclaiming about the "man of character".

When I refuted it with the situation regarding his racial newsletter, and the situation that surrounded it with his lying about it for political gain.....this discussion ensued.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The day a person running for president is a complete "man of character" is the day I take a horse dong up my bum a la Mr. Hands. Maybe I just have a bleak view on politicians, but it's my opinion that they're all scummy power-grabbing losers, who would whore themselves out to any group just to gain votes. Ron Paul seems to be better than most politicians, but he is still a politician, and you don't get to be (or realistically run for) president without cutting some throats along the way.

That being said, I don't think this is a big issue. But by no means am I worshiping the ground Paul walks on as a man of "strong morals and character".

Edit:Except for Heath Schuler

elwoodblues · #**137** 10-11-2007, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it considered stereotyping if he is using legitimate statistics for his classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me the statistics that say 95% of Black Men are criminals and I'll back down.

RedBean · #**138** 10-11-2007, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've been watching you fumble your way around these boards with the same crap for the last few days, so I'll stop responding to you after this.

You think that somehow he's DEFINING racism instead of talking about the effects of racism. People who are racist DO sterotype other races. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES THEM RACIST. Believing that those races are INFERIOR is what makes them racist.

I can't believe the amount of time and effort you're putting forth on this board to "convince" people that Paul is racist. It's like if you say it enough, you'll just be able to bypass the fact that it's not TRUE and be able to say "Everybody knows Paul is racist".

[/ QUOTE ]

I asserted that Paul was a racist, based on his comments in the newsletter, to which RonPaulNation originally refuted by saying that he wasn't responsible for the comments.

Only once it was conclusively shown that he was responsible for the comments in the newsletter, RonPaulNation shifted gears and are asserting that the comments are "not racist".

Interesting.

I'd think any group of intellectual and objective people who aren't under the Ron Paul Spell would agree that the newsletter most definately contains racist comments.

And it's odd to see that many of RonPaulNation originally agreed with that assessment, and only changed it once the responsibility of them was attributed to Paul.

manbearpig · #**139** 10-11-2007, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you could accept just this we would be fine.

1) ghostwriter messes up.
2) Paul takes bad advice and claims article as his own.
3) Paul comes clean about the whole ordeal.

He screwed up. Who cares? Every politician has something like this in their record. But I dont see the racism in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one version. Another version is:

1. Ron Paul writes newsletter in 1992.
2. Ron Paul defends newsletter in 1996.
3. Ron Paul distances himself from previous newsletter in 2001 for damage control by lying about initially writing it.

RonPaulNation chooses to believe the first possibility because of their opinion of the man. Others may choose to believe the second possibility due to their opinion of the man.

And all that aside, if you don't see the racism in the actual newsletter itself, regardless of who you think wrote it...well, then I just don't know what to tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is another version. Except for all the evidence outside of these couple articles (which we haven't seen) point in another direction. Like all his other comments, his voting record, his books, articles, etc.

As for the comments being racist, yeah they were probably written by a racist, but as far as I can tell they were factually correct and taken in context not that outlandish.

elwoodblues · #**140** 10-11-2007, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Stereotypes and racial slurs are racist. Facts are not racist. Even when they are politically incorrect. I don't care much for the kneejerk PC crap. I can handle the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

When will those damn PC police get off their high horses? How is it that you can no longer call 95% of black men criminals without being labelled a racist? Simply ridiculous.