Ron Paul's racist comments

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is basically what we are down too, aside from the few outliers of RonPaulNation who still insist the comments weren't racist:

1. The comments were racist.
2. Authorship is in doubt, and opinion on it is subjective.
3. Regardless of authorship, Paul continues to defend the comments.

Even at best, believing everything Paul asserts about the controversy over authorship and his decision to keep it a secret for political gain in 1996.....I can't reconcile his defense of the comments and refusal to acknowledge them as racist.

That Ron Paul doesn't think the comments are racist makes me question whether or not this man deserves to be president.

His defense of the comments makes me think he supports the views put forward in them, which I find to be despicable.

Thus, I can't see myself supporting him. If others can rationalize or ignore it, and have no problem with it getting in the way of their support....fine by me. That's their opinion, and this is just mine.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't defend the mistake itself, in so much as the substance of the comments, unless I happened to agree with them.

I would defend the person and the fact that he made a mistake, but I wouldn't shirk accountability for it by being so obtuse as to continue to defend the original mistake rather than admitting that one was made.

Do you really find it inplausible for Paul to have simply said "The comments themselves are racist and indefensible, and I apologize for them, but the staffer that wrote them is a truly good person who made a mistake in judgement and was unaware of the implications of this article, and despite his poor choice of words, he is not an inherent racist and I stand behind him, although I do no condone or support the comments."

Of course, that's even assuming that is the case. It's so obviously easy a choice, that it makes me question the truth of whether or not Paul agrees with the racist views based on his refusal to denounce them and insistance on defending them.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asserting again. HOW exactly did my analogy miss the mark?
You equated RP not denying an allegation to lying.
I equated you not denying an allegation to lying.

[ QUOTE ]
The comments are racist

[/ QUOTE ]

Back to my concern about your definition of racist. If racism really just means "discrimination based on race," would you call a casting director for a film MLKJr a racist for discriminating in favor of black actors?

[/ QUOTE ]

is this thing on?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

You equated RP not denying an allegation to lying.
I equated you not denying an allegation to lying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't decide if you actually have a gaping hole in your logical reasoning, or if you are purposefully being obtuse for the purpose of making your analogy fit when it clearly doesn't.

I equated Ron Paul's representing the comments as his own during his 1996 campaign, and subsequent admission in 2001 that he kept the truth secret on the advice of his staff as a lie.

At best, even under the most favorable circumstances, RonPaulNation would agree this to be at LEAST a "lie by omission", if not an outright lie in that it has been asserted by credible media outlets that he claimed the comments as his own.

In contrast, you equate that in an analogy as being similar to *you* acccusing me of being racist against Indians and mexicans, in the abscence of any proof or credible basis....and call my lack of denial a "lie".....despite any evidence to the contrary.

Can you see:

In the Ron Paul example, at worst, it was an outright lie, at best it was a lie by omission.

In your analogy regarding me, it is nothing more than a ridiculous and unfounded allegation that has went unanswered.

I tend to think you understand this difference, but refuse to concede it due to your blind devotion and misguided interest in supporting your prophet at all costs, even at the expense of logical reasoning and faulty analogy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to my concern about your definition of racist. If racism really just means "discrimination based on race," ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Except if you look at my post, you'll clearly see the emphasis on "prejudice based on race" as pertaining to Paul's racist comments, not discrimination.

Although, aside from obvious prejudice, the comments also advocated discrimination on the basis of race as well, particulary the part about wishing to try youths as adults differently based only on race.


[ QUOTE ]

would you call a casting director for a film MLKJr a racist for discriminating in favor of black actors?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't. Would you?

Because if you would, I'd find that rather odd that you consider that to be racist, and yet you consistenly defend your prophet's newsletters comments as NOT being racist. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of the quotes with authorship attributed to Ron Paul that were published in the official Ron Paul newsletter, under the title "Terrorist Update", (1992):

[ QUOTE ]

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions..."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these statements seem to be statistical in nature. None of them seem racist. Insert any other race in those statements and while they may not be statistically accurate anymore, I still don't see how they could be considered racist.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions..."

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

All of these statements seem to be statistical in nature. None of them seem racist. Insert any other race in those statements and while they may not be statistically accurate anymore, I still don't see how they could be considered racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What world do you live in, and what color is the sky in it?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

All of these statements seem to be statistical in nature. None of them seem racist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Statistical in nature?

Newsletter quote:
<font color="red">As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' </font>

I'd sure like to see the statistics behind that statement.

Seems a lot more like racial prejudice from a person with racist views than it does a statistical analysis from an objective person. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I still don't see how they could be considered racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote from the newsletter:
<font color="red">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.
</font>

Lookie that, he's saying our country is being "destroyed" by "terrorists" and they can be identified solely by the "color of their skin".

But yet, you say his racist opinion and advocating racial discrimination isn't racist.

Go figure. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You equated RP not denying an allegation to lying.
I equated you not denying an allegation to lying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't decide if you actually have a gaping hole in your logical reasoning, or if you are purposefully being obtuse for the purpose of making your analogy fit when it clearly doesn't.

I equated Ron Paul's representing the comments as his own during his 1996 campaign

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned before that you never showed the '96 comments (which weren't even quoted) were referring to the original newsletter.

[ QUOTE ]
and subsequent admission in 2001 that he kept the truth secret on the advice of his staff as a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think it's a secret that politicians don't write their own material, you must be living under a rock. Second, you never gave evidence other than hearsay that Ron Paul ever expressly claimed to have said the things in the newsletter. If he didn't say them, but merely failed to deny it, I don't see how that differs from you failing to deny you've got a racially insensitive screenname.

[ QUOTE ]
*you* acccusing me of being racist against Indians and mexicans, in the abscence of any proof or credible basis....and call my lack of denial a "lie".....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Red Bean is a racial slur, yet you continue to defend it's use by keeping it as your screenname. You have not denied being a racist much like Paul did not deny being one.

[ QUOTE ]
despite any evidence to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
If he didn't say them, but merely failed to deny it, I don't see how that differs from you failing to deny you've got a racially insensitive screenname.


[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you don't see the difference, which is why it's rather pointless to attempt to discuss it logically with you. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I think Red Bean is a racial slur, yet you continue to defend it's use by keeping it as your screenname. You have not denied being a racist much like Paul did not deny being one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike Paul, I don't have an article published crediting me with authorship that asserted racist views..... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

You still don't see the difference between him lying by omission regarding a piece credited to him....compared to a situation where you make a completely unfounded and unattributed claim about my username.

Yikes. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]