Absolutely. It says that someone cannot achieve because of the color of their skin or their gender without assistance, immediately placing them below other people. It states that their intellect and drive to achieve the American dream are meaningless, and that they are nothing more than domesticated animals who can only eat what their superiors can provide for them. There is nothing more insidious.
Ron Paul Tied to Racist Comments
- Thread starter fast200
- Start date
- Status
I'm listening to Michael Medved's show and he's reading some of Ron's writings just released within the hour. If these are true he's dead in the water. He may or may not have changed, I have no idea, but those comments will follow him around. Most folks won't go for someone that said those things no matter how long ago it was.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
I heard that too. He may be dead with most folks because of those newsletters, but it won't phase his "true believers".
Here's the article link
Some choice (and sad) quotes:
"Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage."
In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment."
I think its pretty clear from these passages that while Paul didn't blatantly use the n-word, his view of minorities is in the very least unsympathetic and skewed. Most likely, Paul has some racist tendencies.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Some choice (and sad) quotes:
"Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage."
In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment."
I think its pretty clear from these passages that while Paul didn't blatantly use the n-word, his view of minorities is in the very least unsympathetic and skewed. Most likely, Paul has some racist tendencies.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Tell us fast200 why we should all be sympathetic to looters and rioters.
Your right that is way off base, the looting and rioting probably ended when they all went back to their regular 9-5 jobs.
LOL good one RP
As far as David Duke is concerned Sen. Robert Byrd was Grand Dragon of the KKK, and he seems to be aces high with leftists, and I suspect so would Duke if he had embraced left wing ideology.
huchahuchax
New member
Apparently you did not read the article. The writer clearly states many times that there is no way to actually prove that Paul wrote ANY of the passages that he listed. In fact, the writer is speculating that Ron Paul must be a racist because he (the writer) believes it is just too far fetched that Ron Paul would allow a newsletter to be put out in his name without first reading it. Obviously the writer has not actually been following Ron Paul or else he would already know that that is also the way he runs his Presidential campaign. Ron Paul just goes out and spreads his message and the supporters do whatever they want - for better or worse (example of better is staggering fund raising numbers, example of worse would be Sean Hannity chase down). It may not be the most conventional way to run a campaign, but it is consistent with Paul's message of self responsibility. And along the lines of reponsibility, Ron Paul apologized over a decade ago for the newsletters and took moral reponsibility for the content because he should have paid closer attention: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...ew-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
huchahuchax
New member
Don't worry STAGE 2,
You seem to have no appreciation of the freedom to think and act for yourself, so a handler will be assigned to you soon enough.
You seem to have no appreciation of the freedom to think and act for yourself, so a handler will be assigned to you soon enough.
huchahuchax
New member
Touche!
I was actually indicating your being incensed by Ron Paul's refusal to impose himself into people's daily affairs, even when it is probably in his best interest. However, your response is equally legit. Good form!
copenhagen
New member
In my humble opinion, it would take nothing short of an act of God for Ron Paul to become president, so... not really sure what the fuss is about.... BTW, is Obama a racist? Not trying to high jack the thread, but it has to do with racist candidates... Somebody sent me this: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obamas-church-ultra-left-and-afrocentric
not exactly....
Affirmative action was designed to remedy past discriminatory acts and the lingering effects of racism. To say that there was never any discrimination in our nation would be to have blinders on. If there is proof that there is discrimination then affirmative action would be just remedy to ensure qualified people are not denied opportunity because of their race, ethnic group or other discrimination.
When it was use to gain political markers at the expense of justice and establishing quotas regardless of being qualified is when affirmative action kind of went overboard. If you can not demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory acts and the lingering effects of them then affirmative action isn't the tool to use.
The writings weren't "just released", they've been out there and available to anyone for more than 10 years.
Ron Paul has officially denounced them years ago, and again today.
A bit about the rag that just happened to publish them today.
And last, Medved is an unscrupulous neocon, using him as a source is unsound.
Note the term neo-confederate near the end of the video in the OP and remember the Lincoln statement of a couple weeks back.
Groups like this think their actions/messages are oh so covert that they can push agendas while others are unaware. They are less clever and far more obvious then they realize or like to acknowledge.
Click the link for neo-confederate and see what it's about for yourselves. You'll find an organization with two faces, one of 'Southern Heritage' to base their other face of racism on.
In other words, the use of the term 'War of Northern Aggression" and sanctimony of States rights and property rights when what it boils down to is that they still believe that the States had a right to hold slavery as legal and the property they are referring to is the black human being they owned.
Groups like this think their actions/messages are oh so covert that they can push agendas while others are unaware. They are less clever and far more obvious then they realize or like to acknowledge.
Click the link for neo-confederate and see what it's about for yourselves. You'll find an organization with two faces, one of 'Southern Heritage' to base their other face of racism on.
In other words, the use of the term 'War of Northern Aggression" and sanctimony of States rights and property rights when what it boils down to is that they still believe that the States had a right to hold slavery as legal and the property they are referring to is the black human being they owned.
If you think Paul could possibly be racist, you don't know a thing about him. That's not him, one bit. He's not a "grouper" and believes in rights of the individual. He's simply not racist.... From his website:
Today, as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls, The New Republic published an article carefully timed to hurt Ron Paul.
This article rehashes an old issue of quotations from newsletters published under Dr. Paul's name, but not edited by him. Dr. Paul takes full responsibility, as he has for over a decade, for failing to adequately monitor the words that went out under his name.
You and I know that Dr. Paul's message of freedom is about individual liberty, and that liberty is the best antidote to racism. If anyone has doubts, I would encourage them to read Dr. Paul's issue page on racism.
Dr. Paul's response to the article is posted here. As you would expect, Congressman Paul denounces racism and embraces instead, the hopeful message of freedom -- the message he has championed for decades.
Sincerely,
Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008
Today, as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls, The New Republic published an article carefully timed to hurt Ron Paul.
This article rehashes an old issue of quotations from newsletters published under Dr. Paul's name, but not edited by him. Dr. Paul takes full responsibility, as he has for over a decade, for failing to adequately monitor the words that went out under his name.
You and I know that Dr. Paul's message of freedom is about individual liberty, and that liberty is the best antidote to racism. If anyone has doubts, I would encourage them to read Dr. Paul's issue page on racism.
Dr. Paul's response to the article is posted here. As you would expect, Congressman Paul denounces racism and embraces instead, the hopeful message of freedom -- the message he has championed for decades.
Sincerely,
Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
No, you’re completely misconstruing the gist of the article.
The article makes the point that Ron Paul at least allowed his newsletter to be used to distribute racist propaganda, and allowed it to go on for decades.
It's not reasonable to believe that Ron Paul could allow this to go on for decades, and fail to condemn it until criticized for it in the midst of a campaign, if it was not reflective of his own views.
Ron Paul clearly is a venial, small minded bigot. Racists such as Paul should have no place in the Republican Party
- Status