Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[CanOWorms]

Man you are so stuck on what was reputed to have said (written ) already debunked . Your wiggling around so much your likely to hang yourself with that noose around your scrawny neck. Give me your mailing address. I will send your family some nose-gay. I know they likely can't afford them for your funeral.

They haven't been debunked. Paul even defended them in the 90s.

 

[frostedflakes]

Ron Paul supporters who don't know about his racist newsletters must be the ones who are trolling. Those newsletters define Paul.

How do they define him if he's never said anything remotely similar to what was in those newsletters during his 30 year political career? Why would he go full racist in a handful of newsletters but not during any other period in his extensive political career? If he wanted to rant about blacks why would he do it under his own newsletter and his own name instead of doing so anonymously in another publication so it couldn't come back to bite him in the ass later? How do they define him when people like Nelson Linder, president of the Austin branch of the NAACP, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, say that Ron Paul is not a racist and they have never heard anything like what was in those newsletters come out of his mouth? How do they define him when he's one of the only candidates who doesn't support the war on drugs, which tends to disproportionately affect minorities? How do they define him if he's one of the few candidates who opposes the death penalty on the basis that it (and the criminal justice system in general) is one of the few institutions in this country that is still incredibly biased against blacks and other minorities? etc.

I think you're assuming a lot here. I think if you look at the verifiable things Paul has said and his record, he not only isn't a racist, but is one of the least racist candidates out there. He deserves criticism for ever letting some of those articles be published in the newsletter and for not more closely monitoring what was going out under his name. But I don't believe for a second that he is a racist.

 

[CanOWorms]

neither. but apparently you're racist cuz your first thought is "oh.. he must be black"

I don't think that you can expect much from someone who supports a candidate that gladly accepts donations from white supremacists.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I like it when Paulbots talk about how the 'war on drugs' disproportionately affects minorities and try to pretend that the very likely racist Ron Paul's policies would be beneficial to minorities. First, as I think has already been mentioned, Ron Paul only supports the end of the federal war on drugs. He is fine with each state having its own war on drugs and his policies are even fine for states disproportionately impacting minorities with drug laws.

If anything, Ron Paul's policies would be incredibly harmful to minorities, certainly more than even the other nut job Republicans running in the GOP primary. Just the fact that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and HUD, remove the Supreme Court from hearing so many cases where rights from the Bill of Rights are infringed by states, etc. would far outweigh his desire to eliminate the federal war on drugs but allow each individual state to have its own war on drugs.

Ron Paul probably has the worst policies for minorities of any candidate in quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if his policies are largely driven by his racist views.

 

[frostedflakes]

I don't think that you can expect much from someone who supports a candidate that gladly accepts donations from white supremacists.

Gladly accepts donations from white supremacists? Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

By that same logic, does Obama gladly accept donations from the New Black Panthers? Or maybe he just can't go through and vet every single person who gives him money for his campaign.

 

[CanOWorms]

How do they define him if he's never said anything remotely similar to what was in those newsletters during his 30 year political career?

He explicitly defended the newsletters during his 30-year political career. Following their exposure in the media, he also restated some of the racist comments when asked about them.

Why would he go full racist in a handful of newsletters but not during any other period in his extensive political career?

Because it wouldn't aid him in the national spotlight.

If he wanted to rant about blacks why would he do it under his own newsletter and his own name instead of doing so anonymously in another publication so it couldn't come back to bite him in the ass later?

Because he's so out of touch with reality that he thought they weren't controversial.

How do they define him when people like Nelson Linder, president of the Austin branch of the NAACP, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, say that Ron Paul is not a racist and they have never heard anything like what was in those newsletters come out of his mouth?

Nelson Linder is one man. His statement was not from the NAACP.

How do they define him when he's one of the only candidates who doesn't support the war on drugs, which tends to disproportionately affect minorities? How do they define him if he's one of the few candidates who opposes the death penalty on the basis that it (and the criminal justice system in general) is one of the few institutions in this country that is still incredibly biased against blacks and other minorities? etc.

He doesn't support activities such as the war on drugs because it disproportionately affects minorities. He doesn't support it because it's from the federal government. He supports the same policies by a state though. Same thing, different source.

I think you're assuming a lot here. I think if you look at the verifiable things Paul has said and his record, he not only isn't a racist, but is one of the least racist candidates out there. He deserves criticism for ever letting some of those articles be published in the newsletter and for not more closely monitoring what was going out under his name. But I don't believe for a second that he is a racist.

So, he had racist things published in his newsletter, by his staff, and defended the newsletters... but he's not a racist?

 

[CanOWorms]

Gladly accepts donations from white supremacists? Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

By the same logic, does Obama gladly accept donations from the New Black Panthers? Or maybe he just can't go through and vet every single person who gives him money for his campaign.

Your video supports my position.

Also, I'm laughing so much at his expression in the video. He's so uncomfortable at the exposure.

The racist piece of shit Ron Paul needs to be exposed and destroyed. The 21st century demands it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Gladly accepts donations from white supremacists? Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

By that same logic, does Obama gladly accept donations from the New Black Panthers? Or maybe he just can't go through and vet every single person who gives him money for his campaign.

http://nicolen.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/paul-and-don-black2.jpg

 

[Nemesis 1]

I like it when Paulbots talk about how the 'war on drugs' disproportionately affects minorities and try to pretend that the very likely racist Ron Paul's policies would be beneficial to minorities. First, as I think has already been mentioned, Ron Paul only supports the end of the federal war on drugs. He is fine with each state having its own war on drugs and his policies are even fine for states disproportionately impacting minorities with drug laws.

If anything, Ron Paul's policies would be incredibly harmful to minorities, certainly more than even the other nut job Republicans running in the GOP primary. Just the fact that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and HUD, remove the Supreme Court from hearing so many cases where rights from the Bill of Rights are infringed by states, etc. would far outweigh his desire to eliminate the federal war on drugs but allow each individual state to have its own war on drugs.

Ron Paul probably has the worst policies for minorities of any candidate in quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if his policies are largely driven by his racist views.

You left out entitlements . Food stamps welfare ect ect ect. free health care. Free higher education the list goes on and on . Were broke what part don't you get . The fed Bank is not nor will it ever be part of the gooberment. Its a bunch of private banks that WE owe . Their not forgiving the debt we owe them. There get collateral for their money. We borrow and they print on worthless paper that becomes even more worthless every time they print more . Clueless living with head stuck in clouds and not a penny to spend in pocket.

 

[frostedflakes]

http://nicolen.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/paul-and-don-black2.jpg

You're going to have to do better than that. If you look hard enough I'm pretty sure you can find a picture of any politician standing next to a controversial person.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You left out entitlements . Food stamps welfare ect ect ect. free health care. Free higher education the list goes on and on . Were broke what part don't you get . The fed Bank is not nor will it ever be part of the gooberment. Its a bunch of private banks that WE owe . Their not forgiving the debt we owe them. There get collateral for their money. We borrow and they print on worthless paper that becomes even more worthless every time they print more . Clueless living with head stuck in clouds and not a penny to spend in pocket.

We can have Paul's state sponsored pirates to steal treasures from other countries. Yes, Paul is so ridiculous that he supports nationally sanctioned pirates.

 

[MotF Bane]

COW and RapedMongoose are just making shit up at this point to derail the thread. D:

 

[RabidMongoose]

You're going to have to do better than that. If you look hard enough I'm pretty sure you can find a picture of any politician standing next to a controversial person.

With Paul it's so much that he's almost certainly a racist. Just a video of him now denying to want white supremacist support doesn't eliminate his racist history and racist tendencies.

Hell, I'm watching the Fox News after debate coverage and he was flat out asked about his racist newsletters just now and he was so rattled that you can tell that he's desperately trying to cover up his racism.

 

[RabidMongoose]

COW and RapedMongoose are just making shit up at this point to derail the thread. D:

What thing about Ron Paul have I just made up? I don't believe that I've made up a single thing about Ron Paul yet. In fact, I'd like to have a real discussion about him, one where people actually acknowledge his own newsletters.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your video supports my position.

Also, I'm laughing so much at his expression in the video. He's so uncomfortable at the exposure.

The racist piece of shit Ron Paul needs to be exposed and destroyed. The 21st century demands it.

Lol at your pittyful attempt at painting the man to suite your view its comical. You have me convinced that there be racism going on here . But its not Paul.

 

[CanOWorms]

COW and RapedMongoose are just making shit up at this point to derail the thread. D:

I don't see made up stuff here. The newsletters are real. It seems that you're the one making up shit to derail a serious discussion on Ron Paul's racist past.

 

[Nemesis 1]

What thing about Ron Paul have I just made up? I don't believe that I've made up a single thing about Ron Paul yet. In fact, I'd like to have a real discussion about him, one where people actually acknowledge his own newsletters.

No one is dening it was his newsletter. You want to believe Paul wrote that shit . Go ahead . Your not convincing anybody of anything other than your ignorant and likely a kin to Ignoramus.

I also know for fact that you can't possiably comprehend what I just wrote so I will give you a clue . It relates to post 162

 

[RabidMongoose]

No one is dening it was his newsletter. You want to believe Paul wrote that shit . Go ahead . Your not convincing anybody of anything other than your ignorant and likely a kin to Ignoramus.

All I know is that it was under his name. Thus, he either wrote it or very likely knew of it and approved of it. Or maybe he's so incompetent that he allowed a racist newsletter to be published under his own name from his own organization for years and the moron had no idea about it for years, yet he still defended them once word came out.

Why would he even defend that crap if he didn't write them or at least supported the horrible stuff said in them?

Also, considering some of his statements since that time, I think it's very likely that he at least approved of the Ron Paul Newsletter or whatever it was called.

And his candidacy at the national level would be destroyed by one single ad bringing his racist history up.

So which one do you think it is:
1. Paul wrote those racist newsletters or approved of them.
2. Paul isn't a racist, but distributed them to get the support of racists.
3. He's so incompetent that he allowed this newsletter under his own name to be published for years and then for some reason he decided to defend them later.

Please choose.

 

[frostedflakes]

With Paul it's so much that he's almost certainly a racist. Just a video of him now denying to want white supremacist support doesn't eliminate his racist history and racist tendencies.

Hell, I'm watching the Fox News after debate coverage and he was flat out asked about his racist newsletters just now and he was so rattled that you can tell that he's desperately trying to cover up his racism.

Like I said, I just think it's interesting that his alleged racism would only come up once in the newsletters over his 30 year political career. I think it's also worth pointing out that the racist comments in the newsletters weren't the norm, IIRC there were only a handful of articles that had hateful speech like that over the decade or whatever period of time that they were published.

But obviously you guys think he's a racist, I'm not going to change your minds, just thought I'd present a few interesting points for others who may be reading this and who aren't so set in their beliefs and can look at the issue objectively and with an open mind.

Pic related, Ron Paul the racist kicking some minorities out of his medical practice.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Like I said, I just think it's interesting that his alleged racism would only come up once in the newsletters over his 30 year political career. I think it's also worth pointing out that the racist comments in the newsletters weren't the norm, IIRC there were only a handful of articles that had hateful speech like that over the decade or whatever period of time that they were published.

But obviously you guys think he's a racist, I'm not going to change your minds, just thought I'd present a few interesting points for others who may be reading this and who aren't so set in their beliefs and can look at the issue objectively and with an open mind.

Pic related, Ron Paul the racist kicking some minorities out of his medical practice.

This is like the "I'm not a racist I have black friends, but..."

Sorry, that doesn't work.

I have to ask you then...if Paul isn't a racist then why did he defend the newsletters?

What do you think about the racist statements Paul has made after the newsletters, for example his statement about people not looking very American to him? What does that mean? Seems pretty much in line with a racist person who published racist newsletters.

Look, I'm not going to convince you that the Ron Paul Newsletter that was defended by Ron Paul was written or approved by Ron Paul. Apparently you think that he had no idea about his own newsletter and had no idea what he was doing when he defended the racist remarks in his racist newsletter. That's fine, whatever, you're probably not of the demographic that was put down by Ron Paul so you're more likely to be fine with his racist attitude.

I think that libertarians can do a lot better than some vile racist old man, but apparently it's pretty difficult for them.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Pictures are good. I like it when a man knows his place in society. It almost looked like he was going for dick there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

 

[guyver01]

No one is dening it was his newsletter. You want to believe Paul wrote that shit . Go ahead .

May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News

Author: Catalina Camia Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
Publish Date: May 22, 1996
Word Count: 685

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.

i'm sorry... but 'being taken out of context' ... and 'i did not say that' are two DIFFERENT animals.

 

[smokeyjoe]

He believes in state rights, which includes allowing authoritarianism in his viewpoint. He's simply against the federal government, not because of personal autonomy or civil liberties or whatever his supports say, but because he believes that the states should be able to oppress you if the majority wills it.

Well, I can play this game too. He's not against the federal government, he believes in limited federal government via states rights - not state authoritarianism.

More poignantly and directed at your assumption of - "because he believes that the states should be able to oppress you if the majority wills it"; if the majority in the Congress (be it Republican or Democrat) wills it (passes a bill/law), is that not federal authoritarianism?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Unless you show the video or the whole interview its pointless.

 

[guyver01]

Unless you show the video or the whole interview its pointless.

do your own research.

lemme guess.. you want video of hitler saying bad things too before you believe he was not a nice person?