You do realize that Ron Paul published a series of racist newsletters, right?

[Zstream]

Doesn't allowing your name to be attached to a published Newsletter in fact me you condone what's in the newsletter?

Mr. Reverend ... Oh snap!

 

[Craig234]

I have read similar articles, and found them fascinating. To be clear, the masks in that image are not gas masks (the one in the background certainly isn't), and my understanding is that the sulfur harvesters in Indonesia do not wear protective gear that provide adequate protection against the fumes they must breathe in order to gather sulfur for a living.

It's disgusting to me for a poster to ignore the horrible situation - the poverty, the exploitation, the suffering and it being rare for a miner to live to 40, while their children then work the mine to support their sick fathers - to find one picture of one guy in a mask (even with the other guy in the picture clearly without one) as a 'gotcha' attempt.

What a sick bastard that that's what he cares about - nevermind his inability to even read the post to get the issue right. This is a clear issue calling for reform for the sake of people.

You just know that the sulfur being gathered is finding its way to uses that are far more profitable such that a trivial price increase could make a big difference.

But who's going to tell the wealthier consumers who don't appreciate the tragedy about that and push for reform, our coroproate media?

It's a good example of the third thing Al Gore has 'got right', with the internet and global climate change, the issue of better media for the people (this was on his channel).

It's not unlike the same issue in Africa where children scrape for diamonds and gold and many use mercury on their bare hands to help, destroying their nervous systems.

It's a crime that the people who want to keep these profits with such exploitation oppose any reforms by painting them as 'communism' to oppose reform.

These things go on for decades without the mainstream media covering them, because 'that'd upset the sponsors/owners'. Instead, cover celebrity gossip.

In the meantime, the same agenda for the wealthy bites American viewers too, as the globalization issues harming the American people are covered from a corporate view.

At least Americans have it far better than the third world - even if dozens of coal miners' families might beg to differ as the de-regulation agenda killed those miners.

Save234

 

[Craig234]

The only part I found to be slightly racist was the comment "The animals are coming". referring to black youths.

Please define the word "slightly", and provide an example of what a racist comment might look like that's not "slightly" racist.

It's remarkable to watch how Paulbots will claim they're so honest and about integrity, but then put the most corrupt Republicans and Democrats to shame spinning for their leader.

 

[Craig234]

You do know that Gingrich has said far more racist things in the last 2 weeks than anything in these 20-30 year old newsletters, right?

Provide quotes.

As bad as Gingrich is, that's an outrageous claim.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

LOL.


You do realize this stuff is 20-30 years old, isn't very racist, and has not been proven that he wrote them...

You do also realize that the establishment has been telling everybody for weeks that newt gingrich is the front runner and he's a complete slime ball who's being exposed even more now.. .right?

You do know that Gingrich has said far more racist things in the last 2 weeks than anything in these 20-30 year old newsletters, right?

PS: We've already had a couple threads about this... way to miss the boat.

Please provide links to the racist comments by Gingrich.

Gingrich's unsuitability as a candidate (and I agree he is unsuitable) doesn't somehow make Ron Paul a credible candidate. Leaving aside the racism in the Paul newsletters, they are full of miscellaneous kookiness and conspiracy theories that make me doubt Ron Paul's sanity, much less suitability to be President.

Oh, and if you still doubt that he was aware of the newsletters, skip to 1:40 in this clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eW755u5460A - in 1995 he was peddling them and describing their contents on national television.

 

[momeNt]

It's disgusting to me for a poster to ignore the horrible situation - the poverty, the exploitation, the suffering and it being rare for a miner to live to 40, while their children then work the mine to support their sick fathers - to find one picture of one guy in a mask (even with the other guy in the picture clearly without one) as a 'gotcha' attempt.

What a sick bastard that that's what he cares about - nevermind his inability to even read the post to get the issue right. This is a clear issue calling for reform for the sake of people.

You just know that the sulfur being gathered is finding its way to uses that are far more profitable such that a trivial price increase could make a big difference.

But who's going to tell the wealthier consumers who don't appreciate the tragedy about that and push for reform, our coroproate media?

It's a good example of the third thing Al Gore has 'got right', with the internet and global climate change, the issue of better media for the people (this was on his channel).

It's not unlike the same issue in Africa where children scrape for diamonds and gold and many use mercury on their bare hands to help, destroying their nervous systems.

It's a crime that the people who want to keep these profits with such exploitation oppose any reforms by painting them as 'communism' to oppose reform.

These things go on for decades without the mainstream media covering them, because 'that'd upset the sponsors/owners'. Instead, cover celebrity gossip.

In the meantime, the same agenda for the wealthy bites American viewers too, as the globalization issues harming the American people are covered from a corporate view.

At least Americans have it far better than the third world - even if dozens of coal miners' families might beg to differ as the de-regulation agenda killed those miners.

Save234

It's not that I don't care about their situation, I just don't care for you bringing this into this "You do realize that Ron Paul published a series of racist newsletters, right?" thread. Start a thread denouncing libertarianism and use the sulfur mining as an example, sulfur that's bought by the Indonesian government, but we'll probably have to leave that out so it'll make libertarians and corporations look even worse, i'm sure you'd get better discussion on the issue than posting it in this thread.

 

[SilthDraeth]

When I grew up, my and my siblings where called animals by my parents. And when we where climbing on things we were called monkeys.

I think my parents where closet racists, and using racial slurs against their own children is disgusting. I never realized those terms were racist until reading this thread.

 

[Craig234]

When I grew up, my and my siblings where called animals by my parents. And when we where climbing on things we were called monkeys.

I think my parents where closet racists, and using racial slurs against their own children is disgusting. I never realized those terms were racist until reading this thread.

That just means you don't know the history of racism. The terms mean very different things in different contexts.

 

[Craig234]

It's not that I don't care about their situation

You have a funny way of showing it.

, I just don't care for you bringing this into this "You do realize that Ron Paul published a series of racist newsletters, right?" thread. Start a thread denouncing libertarianism and use the sulfur mining as an example, sulfur that's bought by the Indonesian government, but we'll probably have to leave that out so it'll make libertarians and corporations look even worse, i'm sure you'd get better discussion on the issue than posting it in this thread.

Ron Paul is the leading advocate of Libertarianism, a leading candidate for the Republican nomination with Libertarian policies, and I'm attacking those policies that support things like this. The Libertarians have zero issues and zero solutions for this sort of worker exploitation. It's the result of their policies.

Not ONLY their policies - crony capitalism etc. in this case - but they cause it too.

That is a very weak response to the issue that you both ignored the problem, and got the 'gotcha' attempt wrong misrepresenting what I said with your offensive insult.

 

[Craig234]

Having obtained more information, I'm shifting from giving Paul the benefit of the doubt to feeling that there's an indication he was aware of the type of information in newsletters, and is lying now because they'd hurt him politically. I see no evidence that his 'disavowing' them is based on any changes other than in whose votes he wants.

Cenk Ungyer had a good guest on who made the point, that people tend to latch on to some of his views - oh my gosh he's anti-war - so much they ignore the big problems.

 

[airdata]

Poll: Ron Paul would fare best against Obama among non-white voters

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/p...t-obama-among-non-white-voters/#ixzz1hkauhW7j

 

[airdata]

Cenk Ungyer had a good guest on who made the point, that people tend to latch on to some of his views - oh my gosh he's anti-war - so much they ignore the big problems.

Even if Ron Paul wrote the quasi racist things 20-30 years ago, he certainly hasn't lately. I mean really... the only dirt you have on the guy is 20-30 years old?

Get real. Newt Gingrich openly said that the palestinians were an invented race, and that they were irrelevant just a few weeks ago.

That's ultra racist. And yet I see no criticism. But that's newt, and it looks like his campaign is crashing and burning as we speak. Why don't you go tell somebody that the israelis are an invented people w\ an invented country... see how people respond.

So, I suppose later this week or next week we're going to be hyping up Romney in the MSM ?

 

[werepossum]

Here are scans of 50 of the RP newsletters: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html.

I had no idea they had been published over such an extended period (these go all the way back to 1978).

This guy is nuts . . .

Which is why this is so troubling. I can accept that someone else could use his name to publish a news letter he didn't edit or read, but for fifteen years? At that point either you are in agreement with the views, or you're a moron. I can also accept that he used to have those views but changed, but just like Robert Byrd or David Duke and their Klan days, even though I can accept that someone has changed I don't want them in power where they could make another such bad judgment with the weight f government behind it.

Although I agree with Ron Paul on many issues, I'm beginning to think he's one of the few Republican nominees who could actually make me vote for Obama.

EDIT: LOL at myself for following a parallel course with Craig here.

 

[Craig234]

Even if Ron Paul wrote the quasi racist things 20-30 years ago, he certainly hasn't lately. I mean really... the only dirt you have on the guy is 20-30 years old?

Get real. Newt Gingrich openly said that the palestinians were an invented race, and that they were irrelevant just a few weeks ago.

That's ultra racist. And yet I see no criticism. But that's newt, and it looks like his campaign is crashing and burning as we speak. Why don't you go tell somebody that the israelis are an invented people w\ an invented country... see how people respond.

So, I suppose later this week or next week we're going to be hyping up Romney in the MSM ?

First, it's offensive enough stuff that it's relevant 20 years later. David Duke is still held accountable. Paul has not made any meaningful explanation of changed views.

Second, Paul's offense on it goes up to this day in his dishonesty in not taking responsibility for it. He's lying right now.

Gingrich's views on Palestinians may have racism, but the statements he made are primarily political (right or wrong, however bad), political not racist.

You can easily argue he has a pro-Israel bias and is hypocritical - that's not racism.

Your issue with the MSM doesn't prove the attacks on Paul are wrong.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Which is why this is so troubling. I can accept that someone else could use his name to publish a news letter he didn't edit or read, but for fifteen years? At that point either you are in agreement with the views, or you're a moron. I can also accept that he used to have those views but changed, but just like Robert Byrd or David Duke and their Klan days, even though I can accept that someone has changed I don't want them in power where they could make another such bad judgment with the weight f government behind it.

Although I agree with Ron Paul on many issues, I'm beginning to think he's one of the few Republican nominees who could actually make me vote for Obama.

EDIT: LOL at myself for following a parallel course with Craig here.

I know this will sound apologetic to some people here.


Just throwing some thoughts out there. And not justifying it. I already posted on how I believe he has done what he can do by stating they are not his views and he apologized for allowing it to get published, and took responsibility for that action.

But think for a moment... wouldn't it make logical sense that:

Someone who is very keen on Constitutional rights and individual liberty, so long as it doesn't infringe on another person's individual liberty, would be hesitant to intrude on what they believe to be another person's "freedom of speech", just because they wrote something they didn't agree with?

And as far as I know, none of the publications infringed on anyone's rights.

 

[werepossum]

I know this will sound apologetic to some people here.


Just throwing some thoughts out there. And not justifying it. I already posted on how I believe he has done what he can do by stating they are not his views and he apologized for allowing it to get published, and took responsibility for that action.

But think for a moment... wouldn't it make logical sense that:

Someone who is very keen on Constitutional rights and individual liberty, so long as it doesn't infringe on another person's individual liberty, would be hesitant to intrude on what they believe to be another person's "freedom of speech", just because they wrote something they didn't agree with?

And as far as I know, none of the publications infringed on anyone's rights.

I would agree with that except for two points. First, they were published under his name; the logical inference is that they are his views and probably written by him, so unless he wants to be associated with those views he needs to immediately refute them AND stop further issuance of such things. Freedom of speech in no way includes the freedom to say things under someone else's name.

Second, racism against a minority by a majority group is much more significant because the majority has the ability to make and enforce law based on those beliefs if it so chooses. This is much more serious than Reverend Wright's "White folks' greed runs a world in need" because even with a black President, blacks do not have the ability to institute racist policies against whites (against that white majority's composite will; obviously things with broad support like Affirmative Action are an exception) as long as whites are the majority. Paul should know this and recognize it. A statement against whites that could go unchallenged might well require challenging if it is against blacks simply because of this fact. That doesn't mean that morally they are different, but that practically they represent different levels of threat to a just society.

To be clear, I am not alleging that Paul is or ever was a racist. He may well have had personal or political factors that led him to tolerate these newsletters. However, that he DID tolerate them, and attempted to defend them, is still a significantly bad thing. I can accept his apology (not that I needed it) but the lapse in judgment (at the least) is still an issue.

 

[airdata]

Your issue with the MSM doesn't prove the attacks on Paul are wrong.

Looking at recent Ron Paul interviews, it's clear that he's not a racist. I'd put alot more weight in recent statements supporting blacks and trying to fix the lobsided prison industrial complex than vague 20-30 year old statements that nobody can even 100% prove he wrote.

To the people releasing this stuff... Is that really the best you can do?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Even if Ron Paul wrote the quasi racist things 20-30 years ago, he certainly hasn't lately. I mean really... the only dirt you have on the guy is 20-30 years old?

Get real. Newt Gingrich openly said that the palestinians were an invented race, and that they were irrelevant just a few weeks ago.

That's ultra racist. And yet I see no criticism. But that's newt, and it looks like his campaign is crashing and burning as we speak. Why don't you go tell somebody that the israelis are an invented people w\ an invented country... see how people respond.

So, I suppose later this week or next week we're going to be hyping up Romney in the MSM ?

I would not defend what Gingrich said - I don't agree with it - but you're misquoting him to try to turn his words into something they are not. He never referred to the Palestinians as an "invented race," he said the nation of Palestine was an invented nation. Palestinians are Arabs - that is their race, not "Palestinian." Many Palestinians hold the view that Israel is an invented nation, but it does not logically follow that their race (i.e., white Jews) is an invention as well. Similarly, the United States was, upon its foundation, essentially an invented nation founded by white Anglo-Saxons. They were not ethnically "Americans," they were ethnically white people who called themselves Americans as a nationality. Ultimately, what he said is disrespectful but I don't think it's accurate to call it racist.

 

[lopri]

And as far as I know, none of the publications infringed on anyone's rights.

Of course, that's the beauty of freedom of speech. It commands us to tolerate even the intolerable (or lunacy). I couldn't care less if Mr. Paul had circulated newsletter stating that he is a divine creature born out of a virgin. Whatever.

Someone who is very keen on Constitutional rights and individual liberty, so long as it doesn't infringe on another person's individual liberty, would be hesitant to intrude on what they believe to be another person's "freedom of speech", just because they wrote something they didn't agree with?

How does such a profound view of individual liberty square with banning abortion, persecuting gays, condemning condom/contraception use, suggesting some humans being animals, or general endorsement of "moral authority", "christian/white authority", etc.? Any of the above, if implemented in real life, directly infringes on other persons' bodily freedom, not just their freedom of speech.

But think for a moment... wouldn't it make logical sense that:

No. It makes no sense whatsoever for aforementioned reasons. You can't advocate individual liberty while advocating ideas directly anathema to such. We call it hypocrisy. I myself consider libertarian-leaning and I completely disagree with about 90% of Ron Paul's positions exposed in his newsletters.

I sympathize a bit with his view on military and I could see where he's coming from, but you've got to admit his proposals are strictly fantasy-based. While I object to Neo-con's agenda and "American Exceptionalism" among the wingnut faction, there is a world of difference between "American Exceptionalism" and "Pax Americana". The latter implies that we should/can lead the world by setting examples and employing nuanced diplomacy before resorting to military strikes. The former suggest that we should be the bully of the world.

 

[Patranus]

Obama started his political career in the house someone who bombed the Pentagon.
That didn't seem to phase you "progressives" that much.

 

[micrometers]

Obama started his political career in the house someone who bombed the Pentagon.
That didn't seem to phase you "progressives" that much.

No he didn't. Obama didn't choose who lived in his neighborhood.

Bill Ayers definitely is the embodiment of leftist radical privilege, I agree, and is a disgusting human being. Even in his latter work, which is wrongfully lauded IMO. The consequences for his activities should have left him homeless.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Newt Gingrich: "Spanish is the language of the ghetto."

source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/04/03/11597/gingrich-ghetto-spanish-hebrew/

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Obama started his political career in the house someone who bombed the Pentagon.
That didn't seem to phase you "progressives" that much.

I think this is pretty obviously irrelevant to the propriety of Ron Paul making millions of dollars by publishing racist newsletters while he was a man in his 50s and a member of Congress, but to indulge you for a moment . . .

Ayers' Pentagon bombing was undertaken at night and caused no injuries and only minor property damage.

By the time President Obama met Bill Ayers, he was, even according to the federal prosecutor who handled his case, a reformed man who had, among other honors, been named Chicago's Citizen of the Year for his work on school reforms. Both Ayers and Obama say the two never had a close relationship and were merely acquaintances - this has been confirmed by every journalist who has looked into their relationship.

I don't believe this has even a crumb of bearing on the Paul newsletters, regardless. Are you even a Paul supporter, or are you just looking to throw stones at the President?

 

[micrometers]

Newt Gingrich: "Spanish is the language of the ghetto."

source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/04/03/11597/gingrich-ghetto-spanish-hebrew/

Yes, Newt says stupid things.

but this thread is about the Paultards, who are angry and enthusiastic everywhere. It is amusing seeing them try to spin this shit.

 

[SilthDraeth]

How does such a profound view of individual liberty square with banning abortion, prosecuting gays, condemning condom/contraception use, suggesting some humans being animals, or general endorsement of "moral authority", "christian/white authority", etc.? All of the above, if implemented in real life, directly infringe on another persons' bodily freedom, not just their freedom of speech.

banning abortion -http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ It is his belief, and mine that life begins at conception, so if you believe that, then you believe unborn babies have the same rights as adults. Though he has said there are cases where it makes medical sense, ie danger to life of mother, etc. But he also believes the constitution doesn't grant the federal government a say in the matter one way or another. And each state has it's own constitution, which requires ratification by the populace of said state, and if that state wants to ban abortion or allow it, that should be left up to the people living in that state. If you don't agree with the state you are in, then you are free to move to another state that supports your views. Making it a federal issue denies one the right escape laws, and situations they believe to be unjust, or in violation of the constitution that governs the entire country.

prosecuting gays - you might have to tell me where you got this from and what you mean by it, since I did a google search and game up with nothing.

condemning contraception - Again, you might have to show me where you got this from. Since, Ron Paul states there should be no restrictions on emergency contraception. Not sure why he would have that position, yet be against contraception. He didn't say life begins at sexual intercourse, he says at conception. Preventing conception before it happens would fit within his belief system.

Rest of the stuff you are asking about, again, I would ask that you provide direct evidence he supports any of that.

I google searched the first three issues I replied to and was able to refute them. So now the onus is on you to prove that he does support the issues you mentioned.

Referencing the news letters he published, yet didn't write isn't considered proof, since we already know that: Yes his name was on it, yes there where ghost writers, and yes shit got posted that he doesn't believe, and he has stated that publicly.

If you can't back up your accusations, then I guess we can make an assumption that you are either:
A)Ignorant
or
B)a troll