Ron Paul's racist comments

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So why are Hillary's racist quotes getting ignored? And these are even things she unquestionably said!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be, a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.... You can't have New Orleans no other way."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one reason why people might not be criticizing Hillary Clinton for this racist quote she unquestionably said is because Ray Nagin said it, not Hillary Clinton.

The confusion is understandable, as one is a middle aged white woman while the other is a black man, but interestingly enough, they spell and pronounce their first and last names differently. A Google search has confirmed they are indeed two different people as well.

Another reason is probably the duplicity of the liberal media.

[j555]

The bottom line is that we just don't know who wrote the newsletter, but we have pretty good evidence that it wasn't Ron Paul. He's never been on record saying anything like this in 20 years in Congress and is a strong supporter of individual liberty. We've also got one of Paul's former staffers, Eric Dondero, saying that the author of the article was Lew Rockwell, another former Paul staffer.

http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/660

Dondero says it was Rockwell, Rockwell says Dondero if full of it. So who wrote it? We just don't know and I don't think it's right to claim that Ron Paul did. It was in his newsletter though, and he took responsiblity for that. I'm not really sure what else there is to say on the subject.

[AlexM]

Weird I could have sworn the article I read attributed that to Hillary. Well, still, 2 of 3.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

There are always going to be people like RedBean with the political long-knives ready to destroy him with allegations and innuendo while ignoring the many *huge* issues with their own selected candidate.

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not ignoring *huge* issues with my own selected candidate. In fact, that is exactly what I am addressing.

I agree with his platform for the most part, at least moreso than any other candidate, but I just can't bring myself to support or vote for someone who defends such racist comments, and may very well have authored them himself.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I told you what definition I used, and there's no denying that my statements are true by that definition. I also conceded that my statements are inconsistent with another valid definition, and explained why I prefer to use less ambiguous terms like bigotry and stereotyping (which you've conveniently ignored in order to claim I'm rationalizing because of my blind devotion to Ron Paul). You then call me a bigot, though I have not once condoned anyone's actions regarding this matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

The comments in the newsletter are racist. That you ignore all definitions of racism that show this and decide to only focus on the one that you feel it fails to meet is up to you. It doesn't change the fact that the comments are racist.


[ QUOTE ]
I said in my post that our disagreement probably stems from defining the word differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept both definitions of the word from the source you cited.

You accept one definition wholeheartedly, and you completely dismiss the other definition....arbitrarily selecting which you accept based on whether or not it fits Ron Paul.

And yet, you don't see a problem with doing that.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

- Parts of it are definitely racist. Some are debatable.
- He probably didn't write it.
- He most certainly lied about it on some level whether or not people want to quibble about to what extent he lied.
- He may or may not be racist, but his overwhelming history would suggest not, despite a decade old newsletter that is completely at odds w/ a lengthy political career.

The real question which redbean actually did raise a few times is how do you feel about someone who lies for political expediency's sake in this specific case. I'm ok with it and I can admit that without trying to lessen the shame by calling patently racist statements factual.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other question is his continuing defense of the comments as being "in context of current events", rather than denouncing them as obviously racist and insensitive.

If Ron Paul came out tomorrow and denounce the comments and said he made a mistake defending them, I could easily forgive the man, and he'd probably have my vote. For whatever reason, though, he can't bring himself to do that, and has only been on record as defending the comments.

That stubborness leads me to the opinion that he most likely did write them, and at the very least, he still agrees with the sentiments of the comments, as he defends them.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, not correcting a misconception someone has about you is not lying. If I corrected every misconception someone had about me, I'd spend my time doing little else.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it is a misconception based on your positive assertion to that affect, then doing so is considered at the very least a "lie by omission", and is a result of his misleading them to believe so.

Ron Paul put his name on the newsletter as author, which caused others to make "misconceptions" in your mind, to which he didn't correct. Thus when he addressed the comments and defended them as his own during his 1996 campaign, he was purposefully misleading in not correcting them as not being his own, if that is even the case.

It isn't as if people formed misconceptions on their own, in the abscence of his original assertions as being author.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I tried very hard to engage you in a serious discussion about this ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, by chopping up my reply and replying to one coherent point completely out of context. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

For example, I said if my friend continued to hold these racist views, he wouldn't be my friend, and if he convinced me it was a mistake or not meant that way, there wouldn't be a need to defend it.



[/ QUOTE ]

The point is what if he knew it was a mistake, and you knew it was a mistake, but the public didn't know it was a mistake and were hammering him on it?

Would you defend it then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please answer this one RedBean. Thx.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading the whole thread, I wouldn't characterize redbean as malicious, more like willfully obstinate and antagonizing. I just don't know his agenda other than I assumed he likes internet debate from the other thread I followed of his. you should really read the other one, it is masterful in terms of logical analysis and assertion/rebuttal. This one . . . not so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put simply, I agree with the majority of the guys platform, but I have a hard time voting for him when he continues to defend the comments. I relayed that opinion initially in another thread, and I was shouted down by RonPaulNation as spreading lies about his involvement with the newsletter, to which I responded with this OP laying out the facts that surrounded the situation, upon which I based my opinions.

I conced it is merely my opinion that the man is racist, but it is based upon my interpretation of the facts surrounding the issue as we know them. Facts that are mutually agreeable now, that were originally disputed by RonPaulNation.

At the beginning of the discussion, various false assertions were being thrown around from RonPaulNation....from him not being involved with the comments in any manner, to them denying that he ever defended the comments, to no evidence existing that he even knew about them. Thus, I did some research and laid it all out for discussion.

Naturally, as we aren't debating the facts, but rather discussing our subjective opinions based on our interpretations of the facts and the inferences we draw from them, the discussions aren't going to be as logically sound from either side.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
So why are Hillary's racist quotes getting ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because they aren't the subject of this thread, and I never considered it within the realm of reality to vote for her. We all agree on her comments, and if someone were to come along such as RonPaulNation and dispute them as being racist, I'm sure we'd be all over them to correct it.

That aside, I find it interesting that you see her quotes so clearly as racist as you should, yet for the past two days you've defended the newsletter comments as not being racist.

How do you justify the hypocrisy?