Pages:
Author

Topic: Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love (Read 7672 times)

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 12, 2012, 03:55:36 AM
There is no indication that this was actually written by Ron Paul. The writing styles don't match up at all and there is no byline.

He is the editor of the newsletter.  He defended the newsletters in the 80's and 90's and showed not only that he knew of the contents but that he was involved in the newsletter itself.  He may not have written them directly but they certainly represent his views.  Only since the year 2000 has he started to disavow them, which is basically a lie. 

Can you source this? I wanna know if we are reading the same things. From reading some interviews with him it looks like he knew about and defended some of what was written but "repudiated" other parts, Meanwhile, the media is confusing people by lumping together everything as the "racist newsletters". Very disingenuous.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

    – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”

I am interested in your response to what I posted.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 11, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
January 10, 2012, 06:40:48 PM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.



You're a dumbass if you think his opposition to part of the Civil Rights Act makes him racist
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 10, 2012, 06:13:28 PM
He still shouldn't be letting "racist" stuff get published under his name. He has acknowledged he wasn't as vigilant as he should have been and it was a mistake on his part. I don't know what else you can ask of someone but we each must make our own decision on whether this is enough or not.

Anyway, once the quotes are taken in context they do not seem very racist but definitely insensitive to our country's history. They are based on government reports and have the underlying message that our criminal justice and welfare system is responsible for oppressing african americans. It is made clear from these newsletters that the author does not think criminality is genetically related to skin color or anything like that. You can disagree with this theory of his, but that does not make it ok to accuse him of racism for political gain. Even worse is all the people who just parrot the out of context quotes, or even start combining the two, or make up their own (I am beginning to believe the fleet-footed comment was made up by the Dallas Morning News interviewer). Someone should track down that guy and ask him where he read the fleet-footed line.

It is very disturbing how some people jump on the bandwagon and do not perform proper research just because their authoritative source of information tells them something is true, all the while accusing others of being "nieve". It reeks of fascism.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 10, 2012, 01:27:40 PM
Wow people are still on this Ron Paul is a racist nonsense?

Reality check bros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-mVe88Nt1s

James B Powell is one of the racists, not Ron Paul, for it was James B Powell that wrote some of the racist contents that are used to blame Ron Paul.

It is suggested many of the other anonymous writings are also similar in style to James B Powell's.

Also, every president has been called a racist including Barack Obama.

"Talk of racism is lowest form of political discourse."
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
January 10, 2012, 12:50:37 PM
Wow people are still on this Ron Paul is a racist nonsense?

Reality check bros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-mVe88Nt1s
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 09, 2012, 12:30:12 PM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Way to miss the point

Spell it out for me, then.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
I never hashed for this...
January 09, 2012, 11:33:28 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Way to miss the point
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 09, 2012, 11:20:19 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
I never hashed for this...
January 09, 2012, 11:07:36 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 09, 2012, 11:07:08 AM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-a-jewish-resturant-owner-be-forced-to-serve-a-skinhead-57298

I've started another thread related to this one.  Specificly for FlipPro to address a concern that I have with the Civil Rights Act.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 09, 2012, 11:01:23 AM

Ever wonder why RP is such a big advocate of *state rights*  Grin.

You're getting your libertarians confused.  Ron Paul has openly stated, recently, that "States don't really have rights, the people who live there do."
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 09, 2012, 04:04:12 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

For anyone too lazy to watch the video,

Ron Paul wanted to vote to end Jim Crow laws. Chris Mathews sighs dismissively when he says anything libertarian sounding, and just keeps saying "what about all the racists in the south". Ron Paul says it was all government mandated racism to begin with and everything got better due to getting government out of enforcing segregation.  He believes the rest of the civil rights act was another step the government took putting us on the road to totalitarianism.

Good find Flippro.
Let me try to pin you down right here...

So you really believe that African Americans are worse off because the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Are you prepared to say this?  Grin

And BTW the only reason the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be written in the first place was because of racist southern local state governments embrace of the Jim Crow laws. In his explanation Ron Paul would love you to think that it was the *Big Bad Federal* government that was preserving these laws, when in fact it was the states which were objecting to the changes.

Ever wonder why RP is such a big advocate of *state rights*  Grin.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 09, 2012, 03:50:12 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

For anyone too lazy to watch the video,

Ron Paul wanted to vote to end Jim Crow laws. Chris Mathews sighs dismissively when he says anything libertarian sounding, and just keeps saying "what about all the racists in the south". Ron Paul says it was all government mandated racism to begin with and everything got better due to getting government out of enforcing segregation.  He believes the rest of the civil rights act was another step the government took putting us on the road to totalitarianism.

Good find Flippro.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 09, 2012, 03:00:26 AM
Ron Paul is a racist  Cheesy.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 09, 2012, 02:55:41 AM

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.


As mentioned above, I cannot find this in any of the newsletters. I would note that he did not deny it. Did not deny /= admitting he knew about it.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.
...

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

...

   – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]



I found the news letter this is referring to: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
(pdf here: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html)

There is no mention of fleet footed black teenagers, and that newsletter appears complete with 8/8 pages available, not sure why TNR only has 3. Anyway here is the context for the three offensive lines above:

Quote
  Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.
I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.  They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

  
 If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced?  We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.
Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.
 

I would recommend reading that entire newsletter for the full context. It was written in response to the LA riots after rodney king. I had never really looked into the Rodney King story before, and the version in there did not jive with what I thought I knew about it at all, so I doubted it. Here is the full video of the beating (poster says their sister worked for Rodney King's Attorney). It is much more consistent with the narrative of the Ron Paul article than what I had thought happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAc718W8axM&

Bonus: Here is a random "non-racist" line I came across:

Quote
What a relief it is to walk, shop, or eat in the small Ethiopian community in Washington: successful, confident black people whose self-image is not defined in anti-whiteness, and who are therefore invisible in the liberal media.
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-paper-trail-ron-paul-political-report-december-1989/#blkthg

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 09, 2012, 02:01:15 AM
Quote
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

I really can't find the newsletter for this one. I have also seen it quoted as:

Quote
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 09, 2012, 01:23:37 AM
Oh my bad. I just clicked your mr destructo link and assumed the TNR link was the same as Flippros. Sorry for ignoring you earlier on that one. I blame flippro for priming me. Also that mr destructo guy is really annoying.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 09, 2012, 01:13:52 AM
[
Also here is a guy who actually transcribed all the newsletters. He also has pdfs available. It is very useful. Why didnt any of you link me to this rather than angry ranting?
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/

More to come...

His SOURCE was the new republic's scanned images that I originally linked to.  And that source I linked to has no angry ranting as you call it. 

The link I provided is done by me on page three of this thread. 

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

 
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 09, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

I'll start with this. That is some very creative use of ellipses by Judd Legum of Think Progress. Here is the actual transcript. Besides that guy taking things out of order, the CNN analyst also referrs to 'The Ron Paul Report". There were a number of these newsletters (called The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Political Report)" so its difficult to tell exactly what shes actually referring to. Anyway, I don't think either of those things are such a big deal, but it does make it more confusing for anyone trying to figure out whats going on.


Quote
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST (on camera): And let me ask you, I mean, you've been answering a lot of questions lately about the newsletters that were published under your name and some of the things contained in them were conspiracy theories, some of them -- some of them are considered racist, and you -- you know, you've disavowed them completely.
But they were called "The Ron Paul Report." And did you read them at all when they were -- when they were published during those years? Did you ever sort of take a look at it and say, you know what, this isn't what I stand for?
PAUL: Not all the time.
BORGER: But you did read them?
PAUL: Not all the time. Well, on occasion, yes.
BORGER: And did you ever object when you read them?
PAUL: Well, you know, we talked about this twice yesterday at CNN. Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I've said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn't write them. I disavow them and that's it.
BORGER: But you made money off of them.
PAUL: I was still practicing medicine. That was probably why I wasn't a very good publisher because I had to make a living.
BORGER: But would you give it back? If you made money off of --
PAUL: To whom?
BORGER: Well, I -- charity. Charity. If you made money off of them --
PAUL: That's nonsense.
BORGER: -- and you disavow it --
PAUL: You know, I didn't write them and I don't endorse those views and I've explained it many times.
BORGER: So you read them but you didn't do anything about it at the time.
PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never -- I would never -- I came -- I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written, and it's been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this, and CNN does every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1112/21/acd.01.html



Here is what paul was referring to when he mentioned "yesterday on CNN" (Check out 6:40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rDCKBF4JM

Also here is a guy who actually transcribed all the newsletters. He also has pdfs available. It is very useful. Why didnt any of you link me to this rather than angry ranting?
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/

More to come...
Pages:
Jump to: