Ron Paul's racist comments - Page 3

RedBean · #21 10-10-2007, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I quoted your questions and tried to add as much relavent context as I could in an attempt to discuss the issue. Why did you feel the need to chop it all up and take everything completely out of context?

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies. As you had replied point-by-point, I was merely responding in kind to the relevant points.

I'm not as familiar with replying in-line with the colored text, and am more familiar with using the "quote" feature in the forums.

If you could, point me into the direction of what items you feel I may have taken out of context?

AlexM · #22 10-10-2007, 05:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I quoted your questions and tried to add as much relavent context as I could in an attempt to discuss the issue. Why did you feel the need to chop it all up and take everything completely out of context?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's not actually interested in a real discussion?

AlexM · #23 10-10-2007, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, when you completely ignore the piles of evidnece presented to you that you are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

While I respect that your opinion is that my conclusion is 'wrong', it cannot be denied that the FACTS surrounding the comments as listed above are most definately accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, they're not.

Also, you obviously don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" do you?

adanthar · #24 10-10-2007, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I respect that your opinion is that my conclusion is 'wrong', it cannot be denied that the FACTS surrounding the comments as listed above are most definately accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1992 - Racial comments appear by "Ron Paul" in Paul's newsletter.

1996 - Paul defends comments and asserts they are his own to the Houston Chronicle.

2001 - Paul claims he did not write the comments, asserts a staffer did, yet still defends them as being "in context" in an interview with Texas Monthly.

2007 - "Unnamed sources" in an article on "Freemarketnews" claims Paul's campaign have nothing to do with newsletter, it was written by outside source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of these facts are inaccurate, and in what manner?

RedBean · #25 10-10-2007, 05:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You would think they could dig up something, ANYTHING else showing racism, other than some ancient newsletter that doesn't sound like anything he's ever said in the past, or since. You would think . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the absence of similar examples really an affirmative defense against the existance of a known example?

RedBean · #26 10-10-2007, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I respect that your opinion is that my conclusion is 'wrong', it cannot be denied that the FACTS surrounding the comments as listed above are most definately accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain which facts you feel are inaccurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you obviously don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I most definately believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Without a doubt.

I also believe in being able to form a personal opinion on someone when they express inherently racist views.

Bedreviter · #27 10-10-2007, 06:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They were in contradiction with everything he had said before or after.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they don't appear to be in contradiction, as he defended the statements as accurate "in context of current events" in both 1996, and in 2001.

To date, he has never contradicted the substance of the comments, and defends that they are based on facts.

[ QUOTE ]

If all you can find to link Ron Paul to racist beliefs are 20 year old newsletters that he claims wasnt written by himself, and no statements made directly by Ron Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

During his 1996 campaign, he asserted to the Houston Chronicle that he authored the racist comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

So still the only racist comments are are the ones from the newsletter that he said he did not write, the other remarks are rather just a bit of unsuccessfull way to get the issue past him and move on. Id say that when someone has been as much in the media and public as Ron Paul has and has avoided making remarks like that before and after it seems like the newsletter in fact is not in line with Pauls beliefs or feelings. From what I know about him he seems like a decent honest guy, and in this case I give him the benefit of beliving that he did in fact not author those newsletters.

Why would he write that in those newsletters and never talk or write like that again? If that is what he believed in it made no sense putting them in newsletters, as he knows that newsletters will be read by lots of people and whats written on them is there in black on white.

It seems so unbelievably out of character that it just doesnt make sense that he actually wrote or felt that, or that he harbors racist views. I mean if you are a racist and want people to know about your feelings wouldnt you talk about it more often? Or if you are racist but dont want people to know about it would you really write it down in your freaking newsletter?

What does it take for RedBean to believe that Ron Paul is not a racist? A 20 year long track-record does not seem to do it, so what is it that you want from Ron Paul?

RedBean · #28 10-10-2007, 06:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If that is what he believed in it made no sense putting them in newsletters, as he knows that newsletters will be read by lots of people and whats written on them is there in black on white.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could always say he didn't write them, and blame it on an "unnamed staffer".

[ QUOTE ]

It seems so unbelievably out of character that it just doesnt make sense that he actually wrote or felt that, or that he harbors racist views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say it is out of character for him to lie to voters during a campaign for political gain?

Because he's already admitted to doing that.

[ QUOTE ]
Or if you are racist but dont want people to know about it would you really write it down in your freaking newsletter?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might write it down under the guise of "based on the statistics provided" and then later defend it as accurate "in the context of current events".

[ QUOTE ]
What does it take for RedBean to believe that Ron Paul is not a racist? A 20 year long track-record does not seem to do it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not combined with a 10-year track record of defending racist views from his newsletter, and lying about it for political gain.

[ QUOTE ]

so what is it that you want from Ron Paul?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarifying the racial comments situation, along with addressing the substance of the racist comments and explaining his actual views (if they are in fact different) would be nice.

But I don't think Ron Paul wants to go near it with a ten-foot pole, and that in and of itself speaks volumes for me.

Who knows, though, I sent his campaign an email with some questions to that effect, we'll see what happens.

Metric · #29 10-10-2007, 06:30 AM

I think it would be useful if you could define "racist" for us. Based on the posting so far, it looks like you're willing to take any mention of race (truthful or not) in an uncomfortable context (e.g. associated crime statistics) as fitting the definition of behavior that makes one a "racist."

If that's the definition you're using, virtually all of us are racists, as is Ron Paul, I'm sure.

mjkidd · #30 10-10-2007, 06:32 AM

Deleted