Ron Paul's racist comments

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

1. You have yet to prove he lied.

2. Even if he did, though he didn't, one lie in 20 years when most politicians lie every word out of their mouth and you're like OMGWTFBBQ? Get real.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
No, he never lied! Keeping something a secret isn't lying. He didn't deny that he wrote it, but that's not the same as saying he did! Once again, please quote this supposed lie of his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is making me think you aren't a real member of RonPaulNation and are acting as a mole to purposely undermine support for him.

Because nobody could be making the arguments you put forward in a serious manner.

"HE NEVER LIED BECAUSE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING!!@!@!!!"

To be fair to dyed-in-the-wool members of RonPaulNation, I just can't consider you a believable follower of the prophet any longer. It would just be too easy.

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

[Money2Burn]

[ 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 ]

Cool, Thanks!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm defending the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word to say that ANYBODY WHO COMMITS A CRIME IS, BY DEFINITION, CRIMINAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please, please, please, tell me how you can conclude that because x% of people are ARRESTED, x% are criminal.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretending like the only way that somebody can mean criminal is somebody who's been convicted is stretching at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your definition. See above.


[ QUOTE ]
This isn't even about Paul or his comments, it's just about you trolling around to see what kind of response you can get, even though everybody's answered your questions over and over, you keep asking them like nobody can give you an answer

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my take on the "is RP responsible for the statements" question.

First and foremost, I think the statements are racist. I think anyone arguing they are not either hasn't read them, denies nearly any claim of racism ever, and/or wants to believe that anything associate with RP has to be good.

Second, I think that until there is convincing evidence to the contrary anything published in your personal newsletter can and should be attributable to you. For a couple of reasons: 1) you put your name on it; 2) I like "the buck stops here" type of leadership.

Third, I haven't read RP distance himself from the substance of the comments (rather, he says that they weren't his.) It would have been a much clearer story had he said "the words aren't mine, nor are the beliefs included in the words" or something to that effect.

Because he has, somewhat, distanced himself from the words and there isn't a track record of other overtly racist statements, I personally give RP a pass on this one.

The ONLY reason I am still participating here is because I find it fascinating how many people are trying to justify the statements as not-racist and are only racist to the PC police.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cliff notes anyone?
Is the man racist or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comments most definately are, and Ron Paul is most definately responsibly for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moon is made of cheese. It has been settled. I asserted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone simply lays out the facts, how can you not agree? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Money2Burn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are a "criminal" when you are convicted of a "crime", not when you are arrested. As has been pointed out by many a prosecutor, you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, no one ever said that.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because I can't find what you're saying in the articles. Please quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked redbean the same question three different ways, and he can't seem to come up with any material...

But he's not a troll, so lets take his word for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't come up with any material?

Hmmmm.....I sourced the assertion to a Texas Monthly article from 2001, and explained that it is a pay-for-use service to access their archives.

Just because I can't link you to a freely available copy of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And no, I'm not paying to have you join.

If you want to see them, put up your own money and go take a peek. It's relatively inexpensive.

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

Actually neither. A criminal is a person who has committed a crime, whether they're arrested, convicted or not.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...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 ]

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 ]

Except that's not what he's doing really. He's not even claiming that all of that 85% are criminals, just that given how crappy the justice system is, if that many people are actually getting arrested, more are probably criminals.

Also, it's obviously hyperbole, and whatever you might think of hyperbole, hyperbole isn't racism.