Ron Paul's racist comments

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

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

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and the statistic that 70% of black men being ARRESTED is very different than saying that they are criminals. A black man being arrested does not mean that black man is a criminal. Such a high number has suggested in other studies (in particular the Minneapolis study --- I'll try to find it) that there was racism on the part of the police in over-arresting blacks versus their white counterparts for the same actions.

[RedBean]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, the day anyone shows this is the first time it has been pointed out that a candidate wasn't such, I'll be right alongside you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and when I asserted that Dr. Paul was the same for neglecting his own character in exchange for political gain, I was told I was "wrong", hence, my laying out the facts in the OP to support that original assertion.

[Money2Burn]

That's why I wanted to know if anyone had a link to Paul's original newsletter, to see if he had a legitimate source.

Wasn't crime completely out of control during the early 90's in inner-cities? I was kind of young then, so I can't really remember.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, the day anyone shows this is the first time it has been pointed out that a candidate wasn't such, I'll be right alongside you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and when I asserted that Dr. Paul was the same for neglecting his own character in exchange for political gain, I was told I was "wrong", hence, my laying out the facts in the OP to support that original assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm glad we came to this agreement, and although I disagree with the impact of his (ghost writer, whoever) comments, I look forward to our exchanges in the future.

[Money2Burn]

While I agree with you that there is a difference, legally aren't they still considered criminals?

[SleeperHE]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

In the meantime I'm really suprised the following NY Times article has not been posted yet; the relevant discussion begins on the second paragraph of page 4. From what i've read in the NY Times article and also from the info on his 1996 campaign wikipedia entry; as I understand it he doesn't claimed the writing to be his own in 96; but rather that his response was not transparent and that that he withheld the name of actual author to protect the authors confidence.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and the statistic that 70% of black men being ARRESTED is very different than saying that they are criminals. A black man being arrested does not mean that black man is a criminal. Such a high number has suggested in other studies (in particular the Minneapolis study --- I'll try to find it) that there was racism on the part of the police in over-arresting blacks versus their white counterparts for the same actions.

[/ 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? Is it just somebody who breaks the law, even if they don't get caught? I'd have to go on record as saying that 100% of adults in this country are criminals, then.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ 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.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another quote from Paul's newsletter:
<font color="red">
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
</font>

Factually correct? Not outlandish?

Hmmm....I disagree.