Ron Paul's racist comments

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway...

I asked you earlier in this thread to explain what exactly is racist about the statements in question. Until you are able to do that, you have no business calling anyone associated with those statements racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Racism is viewing people who share the same skin color strictly as a group and asserting that they are all alike, rather than judging them based on their individual characteristics.

If you don't think that those comments are inherently racist....then that is just something we're forever disagree one, because bigotry stems from the heart, not the mind, and it can't be easily changed. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I don't think they're racist. I said I don't know. I want you to explain how they're racist. Since you can't do so, I'm inclined to think they aren't, but I still haven't made up my mind.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to see RonPaulNation argue the semantics of the word 'criminal' in an attempt to rationalize Dr. Paul's comments as not being racist.

Is the assertion that the one DC crime statistic somehow excuses the rest of his racist diatribe as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even VOTING for Ron Paul. I'm just sick of people like you who go onto message boards repeating something over and over and over and over to try to get one insignificant thing about somebody blown up into an issue. I put you right along with those people who ripped Obama for not wearing his flag pin. If you want to know if Ron Paul is racist, it's really easy. Do your [censored] research. Pull out the speeches and the votes and the writings AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. If you think he's racist, then good for you. Clearly nobody here is going to change your mind.

And YOU are the only one who brought up the "95% of blacks are criminal". I'm defending the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word to say that ANYBODY WHO COMMITS A CRIME IS, BY DEFINITION, CRIMINAL. Pretending like the only way that somebody can mean criminal is somebody who's been convicted is stretching at best. I shoulda realized what the rest of the posters figured out a few days ago. This isn't even about Paul or his comments, it's just about you trolling around to see what kind of response you can get, even though everybody's answered your questions over and over, you keep asking them like nobody can give you an answer.

Good riddance.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Feel free to provide Ron Paul quotes that prove your point from any of these articles. Until then, you're just making random assertions with no basis in reality. The last time you provided such a quote, I showed you that it was very obviously not anything that Ron Paul said and instead reflected the bias of the reporter. Maybe you can do better next time? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed you to the Texas Monthly article from 2001 where Dr. Paul admits it in his own words, and even some of your fellow Ron Paul supporters have admitted as much is true.

Yet, you still refuse to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I can't find what you're saying in the articles. Please quote.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was curious so I did some reading online, and everything I could find, says that in that 2001 Texas Monthly Article, he admitted . . . it was a ghost writer. I couldn't find anything, anywhere, that said he admitted it was him.

So maybe you could cite specific quotes or links. Cause all you have now are vague "he admitted it" citing a source that as far as I can tell, does exactly the opposite. Proves he didn't write the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's see if you can follow along here.

In 2001, he admitted that he DIDN'T write the newsletter.

We both agree on that.

In the same article, it was asked why then, did he assert during his 1996 campaign the opposite, that he did write the newsletter.

To which, he admitted that he kept it a secret that he didn't write it during the 1996 campaign on the advice of aides, and instead chose to represent to voters that he wrote it and in turn, defended it.

Hence, during his 1996 campaign, he claimed the piece as his own, but later in 2001, he admitted he was lying about it at the time on the advice of staff.

Get all that? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he never lied! Keeping something a secret isn't lying. He didn't deny that he wrote it, but that's not the same as saying he did! Once again, please quote this supposed lie of his.

[SleeperHE]

[ QUOTE ]

Because I can't find what you're saying in the articles. Please quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked redbean the same question three different ways, and he can't seem to come up with any material...

But he's not a troll, so lets take his word for it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Racism is viewing people who share the same skin color strictly as a group and asserting that they are all alike, rather than judging them based on their individual characteristics.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even what racism is. That's STEROTYPING. Racism is believing that one race is inherently BETTER than another because of genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely going on the definition of racism as given by Ron Paul himself in April, 2007.

Paul wrote:
<font color="red">Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
</font>

One could thus deduce that using Dr. Paul's 2007 own definition of racism, the writings in his 1992 newsletter constitute racism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. You can view individuals as individuals yet still talk about groups. A person can believe, for example, that blacks are generally good atheletes and not be racist. It's all a question of how you treat individuals, which is the whole point of the definition you're using. Now, if this person met some random black person and assumed that because they were black they were definitely a good athelete, instead of more likely to be one, and especially if they persisted in treating them differently because of this belief in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that would be racist. Simply making generalizations about a group is not racism though.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
And YOU are the only one who brought up the "95% of blacks are criminal". I'm defending the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the word to say that ANYBODY WHO COMMITS A CRIME IS, BY DEFINITION, CRIMINAL. Pretending like the only way that somebody can mean criminal is somebody who's been convicted is stretching at best. I shoulda realized what the rest of the posters figured out a few days ago. This isn't even about Paul or his comments, it's just about you trolling around to see what kind of response you can get, even though everybody's answered your questions over and over, you keep asking them like nobody can give you an answer.

Good riddance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er....um....I never participated in the semantics argument over the word 'criminal". I think you got me confused with someone else.

And this is most definately about Ron Paul, in particular, the racist views he put forth in his newsletter.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Racism is viewing people who share the same skin color strictly as a group and asserting that they are all alike, rather than judging them based on their individual characteristics.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even what racism is. That's STEROTYPING. Racism is believing that one race is inherently BETTER than another because of genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely going on the definition of racism as given by Ron Paul himself in April, 2007.

Paul wrote:
<font color="red">Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
</font>

One could thus deduce that using Dr. Paul's 2007 own definition of racism, the writings in his 1992 newsletter constitute racism.

Ship it... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


which he didn't write? Head asplode

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter since the quotes don't meet that definition.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cliff notes anyone?
Is the man racist or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comments most definately are, and Ron Paul is most definately responsibly for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moon is made of cheese. It has been settled. I asserted it.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
cliff notes anyone?
Is the man racist or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that he has been in the public eye for years and years and has only one alleged mark against his character that is very open for debate, I would say no.