Ron Paul's racist comments

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, the "I hate black people...all be dead" comment is prejudiced.

It is not necessarily racist because it does not speak to the reason why the person wants all black people to be dead.

But I'm sure you already knew that.


[/ QUOTE ]

From the AH definition cited:

Racism - Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So, yes, the statement is racist.

And apparently, you didn't know that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[manbearpig]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

What are we arguing about?

1) Ron Paul wrote the article?
2) The article is racist?
3) Ron Paul is a racist?

As far as I can tell the answers are No, Kinda, No.

Sure seems to me that he got screwed by a ghostwriter, took the blame for it because his name was on it, and later came out with the truth.

I might get banned for this, but is RedBean black?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The quotes you cited show no indication of a belief in the <font color="red">inherent</font> superiority of one race over another. Many explicitly discussed <font color="red">learned</font> behavior which, by definition, cannot be inherent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief in the inherent superiority of one race or another is not a prerequisite to constitute racism.

It is a prerequisite to the ONE explicit definition of racism you selected in order to rationalize the comments out of blind faith to RonPaulNation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like I was equivocating, when I gave you the word for word definition I was using. And according to that definition, even you cannot deny that these were not racist comments. Your characterization of this as a "rationalization" is off the mark, as I've already conceded here that they reeked of stereotyping, and elsewhere (I believe in the thread where this started) called them bigoted. I have in no way, shape, or form hidden or dismissed the actual content of the remarks. What rationalization needs to be made?

[ QUOTE ]
An alternate definition from your own source American Heritage for racism is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I will concede this is a secondary meaning of racism, but one too easily spread to just about any decision dealing with race. Casting for a movie about Martin Luther King Jr. would surely discriminate based on race. By the 2nd definition, this would be classified as "racist"--not a term I'd use to vilify the casting director.

[ QUOTE ]
Hope that helps you understand why the comments were racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's refreshing to see you finally address a question directly. Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll check back in later to undoubtedly reply to more of your rationalizations on why you still don't find the comments racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

On second thought, I take back the thank you. Blow me. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You're acting like I was equivocating, when I gave you the word for word definition I was using. And according to that definition, even you cannot deny that these were not racist comments. Your characterization of this as a "rationalization" is off the mark, as I've already conceded here that they reeked of stereotyping, and elsewhere (I believe in the thread where this started) called them bigoted. I have in no way, shape, or form hidden or dismissed the actual content of the remarks. What rationalization needs to be made?

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to claim the comments are NOT racist, on the basis of picking and choosing which definition you want to apply to suit your argument, and then you cling to that explicit definition in all your semantical arguments rationalizing your stance.

And then when it is shown that comments meet the alternate definition for racism......you dismiss the definition as too broad.

I didn't realize you were the ultimate deiciding factor on which definition we could use, or abide by....but then again you are the same brainiac who can't put together a relevant analogy nor tell the difference between someone telling a lie and someone being the target of allegation.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The comments are racist, even most of the rest of RonPaul Nation is honest enough to acknowledge that much.....except for you and a handful of known bigots.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Have a good one...MrRationalization, I gotta run....the coke is kicking in, and I got some splittail arriving shortly.

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

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Ron Paul wrote the article?
2) The article is racist?
3) Ron Paul is a racist?

As far as I can tell the answers are No, Kinda, No.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda?

I'd say:
1. Probably
2. Definately
3. Unfortunately

[ QUOTE ]

Sure seems to me that he got screwed by a ghostwriter, took the blame for it because his name was on it, and later came out with the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me he wrote out his racist views, took the blame for it since he wrote it, and then later lied about a ghostwriter since he didn't want to take the blame anymore.

[ QUOTE ]

I might get banned for this, but is RedBean black?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that is irrelevant, and likewise would be pretty silly if you got banned for asking.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The author alludes that all young black criminals are raised this way,

[/ QUOTE ]

No he doesn't. "They" obviously refers to the subject of the last sentence, which is "the criminals who terrorize".
(who he claims are largely black) This is quite a different statement than "all blacks are raised this way".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, he is apparently referring to "only" 95% of them as being raised that way....since in the same piece, he asserts that as the number of them that are criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that was merely a jab at the police. No one actually believed that.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but that is a FACT

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Ron Paul wrote the article?
2) The article is racist?
3) Ron Paul is a racist?

As far as I can tell the answers are No, Kinda, No.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda?

I'd say:
1. Probably
2. Definately
3. Unfortunately

[ QUOTE ]

Sure seems to me that he got screwed by a ghostwriter, took the blame for it because his name was on it, and later came out with the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me he wrote out his racist views, took the blame for it since he wrote it, and then later lied about a ghostwriter since he didn't want to take the blame anymore.

[ QUOTE ]

I might get banned for this, but is RedBean black?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that is irrelevant, and likewise would be pretty silly if you got banned for asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. So one article and two interviews trump 30 some odd years of writings, speeches, and votes? If so, I dont see why this thread would continue. You admit that it is at least questionable that he wrote the article, and that added to all the other evidence leads me to believe that R.P. is 99% not a racist. That other 1% is for the off chance that your version is correct.

Either way, unless there is evidence that we havent seen yet, I dont see any reason to continue this discussion.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So one article and two interviews trump 30 some odd years of writings, speeches, and votes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does 30 years of writing, speeches, and votes justify making racist comments?

Does 30 years of writing, speeches and votes outweight defending the same racist comments for 10+ years?

And does his voting record really show as much? He voted against recognizing the 40 year anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and it was explained by RonPaulNation and by an article attributed to Paul that it was on the basis that he only votes for things authorized explicitly by the Constitution.

Only, he's wavered from that mantra on other bills.....

[AlexM]

Ok, I think I now understand enough about this topic to correct this:

[ QUOTE ]


FACTS:


1992 - Comments appear in Ron Paul's newsletter attributed to Ron Paul that most people would consider racist and were likely written by a racist, but the possibility exists that the writer was merely naive. Regardless, whoever the writer was clearly needs a brain transplant

1996 - Ron Paul is asked about the comments in an interview and due to poor advice from his staff defends the comments. The interviewer mistakenly assumes that Ron Paul wrote the comments himself and doesn't bother asking him if he did or not, which biases the article, making any reader unable to read between the lines (most of them) think that Ron Paul definitely said these things.

2001 - Paul makes it clear he did not write the comments, and continues to defend them in an interview with Texas Monthly.

2007 - Some random person on some random website made some random claim that we can completely ignore.
[/i]


[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.

Now... I have a question for you Redbean. Assuming you're not entirely trolling (you're certainly mostly trolling, but there's a fair chance you believe what you're saying), it seems to me that your primary problem is that Ron defended the comments, so let me propose the following scenario to you:

Your best friend who you've known well for 20+ years says something very publicly that sounds extremely racist to everyone who hears it, including yourself. Later, you talk to him about it and he's like "wow, I totally didn't mean it that way." He then proceeds to provide you with an explanation for what he meant that seems very shaky to you, but because he's your best friend of 20+ years, you believe him. You do know, however, that the other people, none of whom were good friends to either of you, are unlikely to buy it and are probably going to consider him a racist scumbag. The next time you talk to them do you:

A. Defend him.

B. Turn on him.

From what you've said in this thread, I'm guessing you choose B?