Paul's racist past and lies about it may throw Iowa for a loop

it allows him to test his judgement over a long period of time

he defended the newsletter, meaning he knew about the content

i've seen it, you didn't debunk anything

 

again, how ironic for his defenders.

 

I tried to point that out earlier, even citing the magazine Reason, which is libertarian, and I got accused of using leftist propaganda. I even prefaced the remarks by saying Paul had some interesting points on our wars and drug policy, but to no avail!

 

Again you quote me as if i said that. It was a quote from an article. Those were not my words. Dont make it look like i said it.

Do not misquote me again. This is the second time you have done this......

 

you're going to see that sort of behavior until the very last days of ron paul's failed 2012 presidential campaign

 

Eight or ten articles yer sayin'?

Hmmmmmmmmm......

Check these out n' see if yer story changes:

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...n-ron-paul-s-most-incendiary-newsletters.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...ad-newsletter-ron-paul-forecast-race-war.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/224223-angry-white-man.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...0-shocking-quotes-ron-paul-s-newsletters.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...tory-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html

 

First of all, I hardly trust sensationalist articles by yellow journalists who didn't like Ron Paul in the first place. Let's just go to the trouble of taking one of them: The New Republic's crap.

That's one (1). Many of the quotes I've seen come from this one article, written in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots. Needlessly incendiary and racially insensitive, though the riots were committed mostly by impoverished black people and were indefensible.

Nothing racist here. It says Duke was popular because of his economic policies, primarily, and openly admits his racist history was a "taint."

Insulting King is not per se racist, and he was an adulterer. It is unnecessary inflammatory, but I don't think it's racist to have a negative opinion on Saint MLK or, for that matter, to oppose forced integration, i.e. through anti-discrimination laws on private businesses.

Renaming a city after MLK is ridiculous hero worship. And the only thing here that could possibly be racist is "Zooville," and it may just refer to New York's crime, etc. It's not a quarter so bad as Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown."

Where? I don't see it, and the TNR isn't posting the whole newsletters, only what pages they want us to see. At any rate, it sounds like guilt by association to me. What does it cite Taylor about? I might cite Margaret Sanger, who was also a eugenicist and white supremacist, yet no one would say "boo."

The same page posted criticized black leaders "in this country" for being "radical" in their support of big government, but so what?

The main thrust is that since minorities disproportionately support the welfare state, the demographic shift will have negative repercussions by encouraging the welfare state. The claim is not outlandish but, reading the article, I think its expression of it was a little insensitive and collectivistic (whining about blacks being allowed to segregate but not whites, which I don't perceive). I'll say that's two (2).

It also said, "The liberals want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," which I find the most racists and collectivist sentiment yet. This also came directly after Rodney King. That's three (3). Since the very next article accuses Clinton of "kowtowing to blacks," I'll also give it a four (4).

So what?

All of this "gay" rhetoric opposes a behavior, not a group. That's why it uses the term "sodomy," a behavior that, by the way, really is highly risky in terms of contracting disease. What ever you think of someone's opposition to a behavior, I don't consider that, in itself, bigoted, despite what PC dogma may say. Again, it's not bigoted to take a stance on a behavior, even if you don't like the stance and even if you consider it inflammatory.

This isn't bigoted, just controversial. Tying in a perfectly logical and sensible fear of government tyranny with McVeigh is SPLC-like calumny.

I'll give this a five (5), not because it advocate self-defense from carjacking but because it needlessly paints it as racial matter. And because I think advising people to cover it up is an invitation to vigilantism.

So? "Conspiracy theorist" is just a way for defenders of the status quo to shut down debate.

This is totally taken out of context. The article criticizes the leftist media, including TNR ironically, for hypocrisy in pretending to defend free speech by defending Rushdie, while at the same time supporting "hate speech" laws that caused Zundel to be imprisoned for his views. It even calls Zundel's views offensive. But locking someone up for his views while pretending to be a defender of free speech is even more offensive; I agree with this article.

None of this is bigoted, just controversial. And the ATF is a bunch of jackbooted thugs, best known for incinerating children at Waco, which, I point out, is unimaginably worse than the worst statement ever published in this newsletter.

Well, the point is that the press abandoned coverage a tournament in which Fischer was beating Spassky because they didn't like Fischer's "political incorrectness." Now, it appears Fischer has made extremely anti-Jewish comments. However, I don't know how many of those comments the article writer knew about; he may have just heard about Fischer making for mild statements. I label this one inconclusive.

So if you something nice about Buchanan it's bigoted? I guess MSNBC must be really racist, since they have the guy on their payroll as an opinion-molder.

So, so far, I count FIVE (possibly six, counting Fischer) articles I'd call racist, every one of which was published in 1992 or 93, two in the very same issue.

 

What??????????? Insulting King is not racist. You are correct. But having such a hatred for government that you oppose anti-discrimination laws disqualifies you when it comes to discussing reasonable regulation. If the libertarian position is not even willing to regulate racism, then there is no hope for any sort of debate on anything else. But I appreciate the honesty.

What sort of argument do you have against homosexuality? You have absolutely nothing in the scientific or biological community on your side.

This is actually a legitimate point sometimes.

So a man writes 5 articles that are racist...

 

Yeah, I haven't seen any racist comments by Paul. If his opposition to the Civil Rights Act is considered racist, then I'm a racist also. (I'm also opposed to the Americans With Disabilities Act... among others)

 

outside of david duke and don black, this is about as close to an admission of guilt as most libertarians will get

 

Your reply just goes to show that you don't understand what individual liberties are... or sarcasm for that matter.

 

i'll wager my sarcasm trumps your sarcasm most any day

believe me, i understand individual liberties quit well, i have no wife or children

what's your prediction for ron paul's election result/place in iowa?

 

I'm interested in why you might consider the Civil Rights Act to be beneficial to a society of free individuals?

Paul may get the nod in Iowa, Huckabee did last time, but I don't believe he'd be elected President (Romney has already been nominated by the GOP). I don't think Paul would be very effective as President either, most people aren't ready for freedom and don't understand it's implications (like self-reliance).

 

Sometimes thigs of the past comeback to haunt. In this case it was total lack of forethought.

 

i think the benefits of civil rights should be self-evident, in a word 'equality'

until i got to the end of the 2nd sentence, i thought you were being rational, you must have loved the 'story of o'

 

The fact that you would not be in favor of forcing businesses to actually help people who have disabilities to more easily access their establishments is beyond ridiculous. I had a disabled uncle who was in a wheel chair for the last ten years of his life, and under libertarian dogma of hating all things government, there would be no way for him to enter some facilities unless consumers or business owners got a conscience. But consumers don't boycott businesses that use child labor, and they don't boycott businesses that aren't taking action to make themselves green, so neither of those scenarios would reliably produce handicap accessible entrances. But I'm glad to know libertarians believe my uncle should just be screwed if a business doesn't want to accommodate the disabled among us.

 

It's not a "reasonable regulation" to violate the rights of a property owner, just as it's not to prohibit neo-Nazis from marching in Skokie. One is a violation of property rights and the other violates free speech.

I'm saying a person's opinion on homosexual behavior doesn't make them bigoted. It's one thing to define people as inferior because they have a specific trait; it's quite another to criticize a behavior. Similarly, one may criticize a certain religion without being a bigot. Criticism of homosexual sex as unhealthy may or may not be wrong but calling it bigoted is just an attempt to piggyback on the anti-racist movement.

As as been said hundreds of thousands of times, he didn't right them, approve of them, or read them at the time. His mistake was negligently not paying any attention to what other people were doing with them, for which he has repeatedly apologized. Painting him a racist for that is just a cynical smear by his political enemies.

A racist who decries the justice system as biased against blacks? A homophobe who votes to overturn DADT? How strange.

 

Some behavior is so insidious it calls for regulation, such as murder, child rape, and the like. If a private company was going around murdering people, it wouldn't follow that just because they are private they are free to do as they please. That's an indefensible claim. Racism is so horrendous that it has no right to be "freely" practiced. Even libertarians admit to the harm principle, which means I am not free to do something that HARMS another individual, at least physically. And racism results in physical and mental harm, as in lynchings and the "separate but equal" doctrine many whites adhered to in the past.

I agree people can be free to write books espousing racist opinions, but not to refuse to serve someone just because of their race.

Evidence please for saying anything is wrong with homosexuality, since you are making the positive claim that the behavior is morally wrong.

And has been cited hundreds of times, Paul admitted to writing these newsletters in the 90s and then accused his opponents of taking them out of context. His story has completely changed to saying something else, which is either I didn't know what was being produced under my name so I am an incompetent leader, or that somehow a nefarious underlying out to take Ron Paul down snuck through newsletters filled with racism to take Ron Paul down.

 

Source?

Also, those two "stories" aren't mutually exclusive at all...

 

I don't know why. Barack Obama's racist past and his lying about it didn't throw anyone for a loop.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1

 

Why? You don't explain your distinction why refusing to serve someone because of their race is "so insidious it calls for regulation," but Nazis marching is Skokie is NOT insidious it calls for regulation.

Libertarians, BTW, don't assert a harm principle but a non-aggression principle, meaning you can do anything you want except trespass against the person or justly-acquired property of someone else.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's not bigoted if someone else says homosexual behavior (not the same as homosexuality) is morally wrong. It may be inaccurate, but it's not bigoted.

He did not admit to writing them--another twist of the facts by the smearbund. Rather, he did not bother to explain that they were ghostwritten because he staffers said that would be too confusing. So he simply said look at the context of statements, many of which have been taken out of context, as I showed above.

So then he was incompetent in managing the newsletters. Granted. And if you could find me someone else who has Ron Paul's views of peace, limited government, personal freedom, economic freedom, and civil liberties and who has the same record of consistency and principle as he does and who was an equally good chance of winning the election and who competently managed some newsletters, I might vote for that person over Paul. But as it is my alternatives are Obama, Gingrich, Romney, etc. "As opposed to what?" really does matter here.

 

Example. Living in a small town and only having one grocery store. If the owner is white, and refuses to serve any minorities who had the ability to pay, that would be extremely detrimental to them even being able to eat without completely going out of their way to find another grocery store.

A nazi marching through the street isn't going to impede with meeting basic needs, unless of course they convince enough people and then the government acts on it, but that is an issue of free speech.

So what if I pollute the air in the city you live in with my business, or the water?

Sexual orientation isn't the same as behavior. You're right on that. But the behavior stems directly from the orientation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1. He's been inconsistent really. It may have been his political handlers telling him to take responsibility in the past, and the new strategy is to not say he wrote them. It's getting harder to tell, especially since politicians often don't write many things produced in their name.

I don't think he's electable to the general population, but that's because we're all a bunch of collectivist statists . But I don't think you have a choice in who to vote for, if you want the candidate who most closely aligns with you. Any Republican you get that may cut regulation and taxes is going to be obsessed with imperialism, and any Democrat you get who doesn't want war will favor social spending. So you are screwed either way. I'm not arguing you SHOULDN'T vote for Paul, just that this is a horrible stain on his otherwise consistent record.

It's sad to me the racist newletters came out, because i think the drug war still has a racist component to it. And American's military conquests seem to be never-ending. And Paul recently warned the drum beat for war is happening with Iran, just like it did with Iraq, and we have to be careful.

 

"Basic need" is a subjective concept. It would be detrimental to them to witness some Klansmen march past their home. The grocery store issue is an issue of property right.

That's a trespass against my person and/or property.

All behavior stems from underlying desires. Am I bigoted to say eating candy is unhealthy because your tongue has an orientation towards sugar?

He never said anything untrue in 1996. He simply didn't fully explain the history of it and deflected instead. Another tactical error. Not even close to enough to get me to prefer Newt Romney.

As far as I'm concerned, not paying attention to newsletters when he wasn't even in politics, such that a handful of insensitive articles were published, is far from a horrible stain--particularly compared to his opponents, the misdeeds of whom are partially outlined in your second paragraph. The whole newsletters so-called controversy is a textbook example of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. As for his electability, he has every chance in the world of winning Iowa, and, if Iowa, why not any other state? In the general election, independents rarely break for the warmonger.

 

that's funny considering that you don't even seem to think civil rights exist

i can guarantee you that ron paul wont ever be president, people don't want an old nut case for president