Ron Paul's racist comments

[Misfire]

[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I dismissed the alternate definition originally and proceeded to give you exactly how I was defining the word.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize you were the ultimate deiciding factor on which definition we could use, or abide by....

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize you were either. I said in my post that our disagreement probably stems from defining the word differently.

[ 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?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate Hillary, but I didn't think that remark was inflammatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was funny. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
2001 Article (Fair use: I am only included a few paragraphs of a several page article)

[ QUOTE ]
They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "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." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they (campaign aides) said that's too confusing. `It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

How did this pass w/ so little commentary? I can't believe I read this whole thread. I feel stupider for it. Redbean, you are GOLD in the bonds thread, and to be honest I only wandered in here to see what you were up to. I regret that now.

- 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.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

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.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Also, for what it's worth, the politically expedient thing to do would have been to be honest. He was clearly protecting/defending someone.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question is, given RedBean's venom, is there another candidate who hasn't lied for political expediency that is more deserving of his vote?

[Jon1000]

[ 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 ]

I understand that the difference between a lie of omission and a direct lie is important in some cases. I just disagree that it is important in this instance. I'm ok w/ your standpoint. I just believe you are in the minority for a reason and think you might re-evaluate your position in this particular thread if you re-read it in a month and are not tilted by redbean. your insistence that this distinction, granted that exists, is germane to this issue seems really similar to redbean's insistence that this one probable ghost written pamphlet outweighs a decade of politics to the contrary. It's not that either of you are making a logical error, but for some reason you both seem to be purposefully ignoring a larger context.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, for what it's worth, the politically expedient thing to do would have been to be honest. He was clearly protecting/defending someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't necessarily think this is a logically incorrect stance, but what response would you have to his discussion of his aides telling him to claim responsibility b/c it would be easier than explaining it to the (probably not very bright if these racist words were intended to secure their political backing) constituents?

[ QUOTE ]
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they (campaign aides) said that's too confusing. `It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

edited for some typos and to put the quote in

[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, given RedBean's venom, is there another candidate who hasn't lied for political expediency that is more deserving of his vote?

[/ 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.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they (campaign aides) said that's too confusing. `It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

edited for some typos and to put the quote in

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, that quote helps. Thank you for doing what Redbean is unable to do and actually quoting Ron Paul to prove your point. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] So yeah, he was definitely deliberately being evasive (compromise between our differing definition of lying), but then the goal is clearly not for political gain, but to avoid confusing people. Of course, that's a fine line there. But yeah, his aides were [censored] retarded and he definitely shouldn't have listened.

[AlexM]

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

"Gandhi, he ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years"

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talkin' about."

"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."