The overt racist in the GOP field - - Ron Paul

[jefferson_dem]

From kos - -

The overt racist in the GOP field
by kos
Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:40:13 AM PST

From a 1992 article in the Ron Paul Political Report:

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.... 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.

Is it any wonder that neo-Nazis are flocking to his campaign? But Paul is against the war in Iraq and he wants FREEDOM! So that must make his racism okay.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/26/85617/090/639/426519

[groovedaddy]

1. And so many people like the guy. If you're a Democrat

Kucinich covers all the "good" positions of Paul and then some. Dems have no excuse for giving Paul a 2nd look.

[Milo_Bloom]

2. If you want to discredit and discourage from Ron Paul...

Can you do it based on his ACTUAL positions instead of this debunked "racist" story?

There are TONS of reasons not to vote for Ron Paul, including that he is against choice, against stem cell research, against universal health care, etc...etc...

The statements above were not made by Ron Paul, but by a staffer who was fired for them.

[chascarrillo]

3. Yeah, the "staffer"'s fault...

The end of the line is: Ron Paul allowed the newsletter to be sent out with his name on it. He owns that statement.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. Oh please...

He "owns" nothing about it.

If we held our own candidates to this standard, none of them should be voted for because at some point, someone working for them, said or printed something idiotic.

Some of them even did absolutely barbaric things, like vote for a war, or co-sponsor a war bill, but people want to forgive them for it.

You want to not vote for Ron Paul or discourage people from voting for him, come up with a real reason (of which there are PLENTY), instead trying to dig up some idiotic dirt from 1992.

[chascarrillo]

7. It was his newsletter

It was the newsletter that he sent out from his congressional office. He published it. He holds ultimate responsibility for anything that's written in it.

How can this be such a foreign concept to you?

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Because I live in the real world.

And I understand that just because someone "publishes" something, doesn't mean they read it or deserve to be saddled with everything said in it... especially when they apologized for the statements and fired the person responsible.

Everytime this phony racist story goes around, you probably sucessfully convert a few people into Ron Paul voters, because if they do 2 seconds of research, they discover the story is BS and then wonder why you have to spread this idiotic story to discourage them from voting and instead of focusing on the REAL REASONS not to vote for him, they start to dismiss everything you say, because you have already been proving spinning out of control.

[FredScuttle]

14. "apologized for the statements"?

I was not aware Grand Wizard Paul ever issued an apology. Do you have a link?

[Milo_Bloom]

15. No, I don't have a link...

The story was debunked so long ago, and since I am not voting for him, I didn't bother saving links, because I didn't think people would be stupid enough to try and use it as a talking point.

Live and learn

[FredScuttle]

16. So you have no evidence that Paul ever apologized for a racist screed in his own newsletter

but you're giving him the benefit of the doubt. Bully for ya.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Sure I do.

I read it.

It's called eye witness testimony.

[chascarrillo]

23. His newsletter. Under his name. Defended it in '96.

You have no leg to stand on. So cut down on the abuse, k?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Not true.

He didn't "defend it" in 1996. This is yet another lie, used to create more spin.

He pointed out in 1996 that he detests racism and that the quotes were being taken out of context.


Are you THAT terrified of Ron Paul that you have to make stuff up to try and attack him?

Pathetic that people can't fight on issues and have to resort to idiotic spin and lies.

[chascarrillo]

26. Saying they were taken out of context is defending the quotes

Saying that the quotes were taken out of context is defending the quotes. Paul defended them in '96. They were published in his newsletter with his name on it.

You familiar with the Robert Taft club? The one run by a member of the hate group VDARE? Ron Paul spoke in front of them a few months ago. The club has also hosted members of the League of the South, American Renaissance, and flew in two party leaders from Vlamms Belang this year 'cause they thought so much of them. Vlamms Belang, by the way, is a Fascist political party in Belgium. "Fascist" as in having a former party member who rounded up Jews and handed them over to the Germans in WWII. "Fascist" as in trying to get pardons for Nazi collaborators. These are the people who Ron Paul surrounds himself with.

And you want me to shut up about it. No. I will not.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. No, its not.

It's saying they are taken out of context.


You can blather on about whatever you want. The fact that you look like an idiot who wants to follow a debunked story instead of discussing actual issues is up to you.


You will surely continue to create future Ron Paul supporters by using these tactics, instead of discussing REAL reasons not to vote for him... but I guess you don't feel whatever candidate you support is strong enough to win on the issues.

[chascarrillo]

30. "It's saying they are taken out of context."

"It's saying they are taken out of context." is a defense of the comments. Duh.

I think my preferred candidate is strong enough to win on the issues. Also, dunno about your candidate, but my candidate is running for the Democratic nomination, so they are not running against Ron Paul.

So, what about the Robert Taft Club? Have a handy defense for that?

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Still wrong.

""It's saying they are taken out of context." is a defense of the comments. Duh."

No, it is saying they are taken out of context.

"I think my preferred candidate is strong enough to win on the issues."

Obviously not, since you haven't mentioned a single issue.

'So, what about the Robert Taft Club? Have a handy defense for that?"

Don't need one.

My candidate can defeat Ron Paul on the issues... I don't need red herrings and lies to try and deter people.

[chascarrillo]

34. Paul has repeatedly made speeches to white supremacists

... from the wake of Ruby Ridge to the Robert Taft Club (again, the president of which writes for VDARE, regularly hosts American Renaissance and League of the South members, and earlier this year brought two members of an explicitly Fascist party over from Europe).

He has repeatedly argued against the Civil Rights Act. Just this past weekend, Paul spoke out against fighting to free the slaves. On Meet the Frickin' Press.

These are not lies. These are not red herrings. This is the truth, and you have a problem with that. I wonder why.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Still red herrings

The lies are the racist comments which he never made.

The red herrings is trying to play the race card where it doesn't belong. None of what he says has to do with RACE it has to do with government intervention.

If you could take 20 seconds to think, you could figure out that you could attack the ISSUE without trying to spin it into some racially motivated attack, which only makes people question your motives.

Here, since you lack the capability, let me show you.

If Ron Paul were president, we wouldn't have the civil rights act, because Ron Paul doesn't believe the govenrment should be involved in such matters. The country is better off BECUASE of the civil rights act, thus, the country would be worse off if Ron Paul were in office.

See, we can attack the position without whining about racism where there is no racism.

[crawfish]

47. The Robert Taft club...

was founded by a Jewish, half-Asian man (Marcus Epstein), and includes a number of minority members (including African-Americans). To label it a neo-nazi group is disingenuous.

The NYT posted a retraction yesterday of its claims: http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

The truth is, the MSM and powers-that-be will stop at no slander or lies to keep Paul, or anybody else with revolutionary ideas, from ascending to the presidency. I know too many African-Americans who support Paul to feel that he is pushing racist policy.

There is enough about the guy's policies to worry about without the canard of him being a racist.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. Don't blame the MSM on this one...

They aren't really pushing this idiotic racism story because it was debunked so long ago. Everyone once in a while it gets brought up, but luckily most of the time it gets tossed aside quickly.

The reason this keeps popping up here is because people on this board are so fearful of Ron Paul and his anti-war talk that they feel the need to try and shame people from this board who may consider supporting him.

What they don't realize is that trying to shame people mostly pushes them in the opposite direction, especially when the person finds out you are spouting phony outrage at a BS story.

[chascarrillo]

57. If you are pushed into racism by my pointing out of racism

... then, well, that's just sad.

Also, I'm anti-war, so I'm not afraid of anti-war talk.

I am anti-racist, so I call out racist attitudes when I see them. And there is a lot of that when it comes to Ron Paul, regardless of your revisionism.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Still no racism.

You still haven't pointed out ACTUAL racism, but instead trying to find it where none exists.

Attack the POLICIES not the EMOTION.

[crawfish]

82. The revisionism...

is what is making Ron Paul out to be a racist in the first place.

Geez. Who'd realize that the one thing that could unite extremist liberals and conservatives is a maverick Republican?

[chascarrillo]

52. The truth

The NYT retracted none of the claims that I made.

Quotes from Marcus Epstein - all from VDARE.com:

"The growing Muslim population in what was once Christendom is a legitimate cause for alarm."

"The anti-amnesty backlash was created by groups like the Minutemen, webzines like VDARE.COM, and people like Lou Dobbs. It was effectively channeled by organizations like Numbers USA. What has been remarkably absent from this debate is the conservative Establishment giving any credit to people like Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, and John O’Sullivan who had been sounding the alarm—people who Jonah Goldberg once called "ideologues" of "racial doom-and-gloom", and who are now marginalized by the same conservatives who just discovered immigration reform."

Headline: "Treason Lobby’s DREAM Act—Amnesty For Anchor Adults"

"Congressman Tom Tancredo doesn't make gaffes—because he always intends to tell the truth. During the last few years, he has been accused of racism, xenophobia and all the other usual smear words whenever he criticizes mass immigration and multiculturalism. But, unlike most politicians, he has stood by his convictions, never backed down, and ends up more popular after each controversy." (under 'Tom Tancredo vs. Third World Miami, "Capital Of Latin America"')

More, if you need it, at http://www.vdare.com/epstein/index.htm

-----

Again, the Robert Taft Club regularly hosts folks from American Renaissance and League of the South. Here's some of the titles of AmRen articles:

"The 'Jena 6' Fraud"

"The Color of Crime"

"Why Race Matters"

"The Rosa Parks Madness"

"Africa In Our Midst: Lessons from Katrina"

"A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century"

More if you want to dig into this filth (and if you doubt that it is, please do): http://www.amren.com/

-----

The Robert Taft Club hosted two leaders of Vlamms Belang earlier this year. Here's some facts about them:

From their platform:

Full and unconditional amnesty for people convicted for collaboration with Nazi Germany after World War II.

Repeal of anti-racism and anti-discrimination legislation.

They had called for the deportation of all (ALL) immigrants, until they were legally prevented from doing so.

Here's some quotes from Filip Dewinter, floor leader of Vlaams Belang (formerly Vlaams Blok) - he was one of the people invited to speak in front of the Robert Taft Club:

"Vlaams Blok says: Our own people first!! And yes, Vlaams Blok chooses a Flemish Flanders. And yes, Vlaams Blok chooses a white Europe!"

"He is one of the historic leaders of the party. This is part of the history of the Flemish nationalist movement and it is impossible to deny this. We are the descendants of this movement. Some of the members of the party attend these events because they want to honor the heritage of the Flemish movement. This does not mean that they agree with Nazism. Not at all. I understand that this is hard to understand as a Jew. I respect very much that Jews have a problem with this. But Jews must also understand that this is not as simple as it seems. Not all of the collaborators wanted to kill the Jews in Europe. Most of the collaborators had other motives. I think that if they were living today, most of them would be ashamed of what happened to the Jews. The only thing I can do today is to say that I respect very much the suffering of the Jewish people, to express my sympathy and condolences about what happened and to try to move far away from this. But the Jewish people must understand that not every collaborator was necessarily anti-Semitic."

"When my daughter comes home with a lesbian girlfriend, a Muslim or a negro, I'll know I raised her wrong. But it's her own choice."

All from wiki (I know, but all are sourced):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filip_Dewinter

----

These are the people that Ron Paul associates with. I will not shut up about this. Sorry.

[crawfish]

83. The truth?

is that none of the sources were credible, and either way, they are all secondhand inferences anyway.

A guy in my class at church was arrested for molesting children. If I was running for president, you could say "crawfish attended church with and was friendly with a known pedophile". It would be true, but wouldn't mean a damn thing.

I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I understand the feelings behind the Paul camp. And I'm pissed at the misinformation that's getting passed on about him. Personally, there is enough about his policies to make us nervous without the red herrings.

[chascarrillo]

85. None of the sources are credible?

Um. Wow.

The president of the Robert Taft Club is Marcus Epstein. He writes columns for VDARE. The source for his quotes were his columns on the VDARE site. That's credible.

The Robert Taft Club regulars hosts speakers from American Renaissance. The source for the American Renaissance quotes was the American Renaissance website.

I mean, my god. You've broken my brain with your assertion that the people's own websites aren't credible sources for information about the people.

Ouch.

Your analogy falls flat. We're not talking about someone who happens to be at the same meeting with someone else. We're talking about accepting an invitation to speak to a group with clear white supremacist positions... just like when Trent Lott spoke to the supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens. If Paul accepts a speaking gig, that, well, speaks volumes.

[silverback]

12. His Congressional office?

In 1992 Ron Paul wasn't in congress, he was practicing medicine.

Holding him personally responsible for everything printed in that report is like claiming everything that appears on Huffington post is Ariannas words, it just isn't true.

Also, those quotes are taken out of context, in such a way as to intentionally change their meaning. The article was racially insensitive and the guy who wrote it was fired, the issue in question was recalled and no hard copies seem to exist, and shortly thereafter the newsletter ceased to be...

And to answer another charge in the thread, Paul doesn't use the term "states rights".Governments don't have rights, they have powers. Individuals have rights.

Believing in Federalism isn't dishonorable.

I don't understand why people are so threatened by this guy they have to pull out the race card, we can beat any Republican on the issues.

[FredScuttle]

104. Is Arianna Huffington not responsible for content that goes out under her BYLINE?

Hmmmmm?

[Milo_Bloom]

112. Sometimes, she is not.

As has already happened in the past.

You should learn some recent history.

[LanternWaste]

53. Regardless of whether I'm at directly at fault or not...

Regardless of whether I'm at directly at fault or not, every mistake made in my department is my responsibility.

I apply that same standard to all candidates-- regardless of whether they're the good guys or the GOP. And it does affect my vote-- maybe not to the degree of actually endorsing or denying my vote, but the degrees of small mistakes begin to add up.

[cali]

9. It went out under his name. He's responsible for it. That's the

way things work. He didn't repudiate it until it was convenient to do so. He's a racist. Get used to it.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. There is no proof of that, deal with it.

I will choose to not vote for him for real reasons, instead of made of BS.

Its kinda sad that people have to reach so deep into the world of spin to find some reason to vote against Ron Paul.

I guess the anti-choice, pro-state's rights, anti-stem cell research, anti-public education isn't good enough reasons for some people... you have to try to make something out of BS.

Pathetic.

[Bjorn Against]

21. The BS is coming from Ron Paul...

The man who once defended those very comments came out nine years after they were made and suddenly denied making them. Why should we trust someone who first defended the comments and only denied making them years later when they looked like they could damage him politically?

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Nay

LONG ago debunked.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. He never defended the comments...

He said the quotes being attributed to him at the time were being taken out of context.

[cali]

35. People who don't deal with Paul's racism are pathetic enablers of disgusting bigotry

How is that little freak a racist? Here's how. He was the only Rep who voted NO to recognizing and honoring Brown v Board of Education. That's right; the only miserable litte puke who voted no on integration. And that's what that vote meant.

Pathetic to deny something so fucking in your face obvious.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Sorry, still not a racist.

Voting no to recognizing and honoring Brown v Board of Education is actually consistent with his stated principles.

Maybe, instead of whining about racism that isn't there, you could properly attack the PRINCIPLE and show how he is wrong, instead of trying to find some other reason.


The fact that Ron Paul doesn't want to recognize Brown V Board shows that his prinicples lead to bad conclusions. Brown v Board shows that government does sometimes need to get involved to solve large problems. Use it as an example of why Ron Paul's principles are incorrect, instead of trying to find the gotcha politics in it.

This whining is exactly WHY Ron Paul is so popular, because people don't even try to argue the issue, instead they try to argue the emotion and frankly, no one cares about your phony outrage.

[cali]

45. and no one gives a fart about your asinine

and eager defense of Paul or your endless fucking whinging about how unfair it is to link him to his own miserable record on civil rights. It's not gotcha politics, it's his record. Duh. He's tied to racists by accepting their money. He's issued racist statements in a newsletter. He wrote a very questionable OpEd for the LA Times.

And I've found dozens of reasons not to vote for the misogynistic, racist asshole, beyond his misogyny and racism, but you're the one that wants to make it an issue. I'm glad to refute you. Don't like it? Too bad.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Obviously, you do.

You are actually creating more Ron Paul voters with your idiotic gotcha diatribes, instead of discussing the actual issues.

What you need to do is try and seperate your whining about racism from the actual issues.

Its people who see racism where there is none, who do more to hurt the causes, because it causes people who care about the issues to wonder why you have to lie and play gotcha games to distract form the issues.

[FredScuttle]

50. The best way to create more Ron Paul voters

is to mass-ship voter registration forms to the next Stormfront/Aryan Brotherhood/Christian Identity/KKK chapter meeting, along with the latest issue of the Ron Paul Race War Report.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. Or just lie and make people learn the truth and wonder why you are lying.

[FredScuttle]

55. Only an apologist for a racist like Ron Paul would get so worked up over "lies" about his racism

If simpletons and morons who are closet racists to begin with become fans of Ron Paul because I post on a fucking Internet discussion board that Ron Paul is a disgusting, congenital racist, so be it (thought I doubt this occurs in any kind of frequency the likes of which you're worried about)...I'm not going to shut up and I damn well am not going to give a racist piece of shit like Ron Paul any benefit of the doubt.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. The usual confusion and phony outrage.

The point is your prove yourself a liar with something to hide when you try to use debunked stories to go after shame voting, instead of issues... you undermine anything else you have to say, because you are dismissed.

When you tell someone something that is simply untrue, everything else you say becomes suspect.


Attack Ron Paul on POLICY, where it is easy to win. Point out how his positions are BAD for America and BAD for individuals, but everytime you go on with this phony outrage about disproven racism, you force people to discount everything else you might have to say.

[FredScuttle]

64. What in the hell are you trying to say in your first sentence?

That sentence makes about as much sense as calling Ron Paul a champion for civil rights.

I'm not being dismissed for saying Ron Paul is a crypto-racist by anyone except an agitated apologist for racism like you. I'd love to see all this "debunking" of his overt racism, but you're unwilling to provide it.

so why again are you spinning so hard to defend a racist like Ron Paul?

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Where do I actually defend him?

I think I see why you are so confused.

Pointing out the fact that you do more harm than good by trying to appeal to shame by using a debunked story and non-associative reasoning is not DEFENDING him or the positions. Its pointing out that this line of attack is nonsensical and does more harm than good because it has been debunked in the past.

[FredScuttle]

69. You're defending a bigot and a racist by saying the evidence of his racism has been "debunked"

I'm waiting patiently for this magical "debunking" you're referring to. And explain to me again how anyone reasonable voter (you know, other than mouth-breathing closet racists) would be "driven to Ron Paul" after they read how racist he is?

[Milo_Bloom]

72. It has been debunked.

[FredScuttle]

79. So you say...

If you're too lazy to provide any evidence of this "debunking", pardon me if I discount any such "debunking"

[Milo_Bloom]

90. Its debunked by your lack of proof.

[FredScuttle]

105. The only thing I lack proof of

is proof that Grand Wizard Paul apologized IN 1996 for a racist screed...


in his newsletter

under his byline

[Milo_Bloom]

111. Completely Debunked from lack of proof.

[WoodrowFan]

106. it's in his head

the "debunking" is all in his head I suspect.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. And in reality too.

[chascarrillo]

70. Every post of yours in this thread

You defend his position against Brown vs. Board of Education.

You defend his position against the Civil Rights Act.

You defend him speaking in front of the Robert Taft Club.

You defend his newsletter.

And you have been vicious and nasty towards those of us who see racism in Paul's policies and actions.

If you're confused about people thinking that you defend him when you defend him, well, I can't help you with that.

[Milo_Bloom]

73. Wow, and then comes the lies.

"You defend his position against Brown vs. Board of Education."

Where?

"You defend his position against the Civil Rights Act."

Where?

"You defend him speaking in front of the Robert Taft Club."

Where?

"You defend his newsletter."

Where?

"And you have been vicious and nasty towards those of us who see racism in Paul's policies and actions."

Just those stupid enough to try and make an issue out of debunked story, rather than actually using issues. It is the same style of politics that got us bush, twice, because idiots who can't debate issues try to use shame politics to influence voters.

[chascarrillo]

75. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3889267&mesg_id=3893449

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Again, where?

Where is the DEFENSE of the positions?

Where in your link to claim these are good positions to have?

Oh wait, I don't... I say EXACTLY the opposite.

This is why you need to be schooled on this subject.

[chascarrillo]

77. You're defending Paul in this thread

How could I have misread your fifty posts here?

Anyone reading the litany of associations he has with white supremacists and policies associated with white nationalism knows which way the wind blows... and I didn't even mention his dissemination of standard anti-semitic tropes.

A frickin' deaf, dumb, blind kid could sniff Paul out. You can't. Whatever.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. Bingo.

Since you can't point out any actual defense of his positions, I guess you finally figured it out.

Nice attempt at covering up. Didn't work, but the attempt was cute.

[chascarrillo]

58. He's against Brown vs. Board of Education

He's against Brown vs. Board of Education.

He's against the North freeing the slaves.

He's against the Civil Rights Act.

You can't spin those facts. Those alleged "principles" are shit.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Those positions don't make him a racist.

Sorry you don't like reality, but here it is biting you in the rear.

You can be "against" brown v board of education and not be a racist because you don't believe in the government's interference in the issue.

Someone can be against affirmative action and not be a racist.

Someone can be against hate crime legislation and not be a racist.

Someone can be against political correctness and not be a racists.

Now, here is where it gets freaky.

Someone can be FOR Brown v Board of Education and BE a racist

Someone can be FOR Affirmative ACtion and BE a racist

etc..etc...

You see someone can believe that the government should have a complete non-intervention policy because they believe everyone is equal and that the free market will ultimately discover that. This person is NOT a racist.

Someone else can believe that certain minorities are actually inferior and that the government should help them because of their inferiority. This person IS a racist.

Or you could be like me and believe that all people are equal, but that the system has created a basic inequity and the government needs to step in to right that wrong and we will see a positive result for individuals AND society by righting that wrong. The only difference is I think race shouldn't be a factor, but instead ECONOMICS should be the key factor involved.

[chascarrillo]

65. Hahahaha

Yeah, okay. You can go ahead and play apologist for someone who was against Brown vs. Board of Education, against the Civil Rights Act, against the North freeing the slaves, who has repeatedly published racist comments in his newsletter (over a period of several years, so the "he fired the ghostwriter" dog don't hunt), who frequently speaks in front of White Nationalists, who won't return donations from white supremacists (but will refuse money from Medicare recipients)...

You go ahead and defend his racism. You go ahead and be shrill against me for pointing it out. I will not back down in the face of racism, no matter how inconvenient it is for you.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. Your phony outrage is amusing.

Unfortunately for you, it is not supported by actual facts, which is why the story doesn't have legs outside of tiny circles of those unable to actually debate the issues.

The problem is that the more people who repeat this debunked story, the more it makes it seem that people are AFRAID of Ron Paul, which makes people more interested in researching him.

[LanternWaste]

56. So there's no proof he is a racist and there's no proof he's not a racist

So there's no proof he is a racist and there's no proof he's not a racist. Maybe you kids could settle this more quickly simply by getting a measuring stick...

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Exactly.. the only PROOF we have...

Is that his POSITIONS are bad.

Anti-Choice, Anti-Stem Cell Research, Anti-Public Education, Anti-UN.


He doesn't see a place for government in our lives, when Government is ultimately responsible for many great things and can continue to be so in the future.

[Bjorn Against]

20. They were made by Ron Paul and he defended them before he apologized

In 2001, as Paul moved to the mainstream and rejoined the Republican party, he disavowed these comments and blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter. But when Paul ran for Congress in 1996, as a Libertarian, his opponent brought these up to show that Paul had fringe ideas. At that time, Paul told the Houston Chronicle that he opposed racism and his commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2426

So they were published under his name and he defended them as being based on "current events and statistical reports of the time." He did not disavow them until nine years after they were made because he was under political pressure to do so. It is hard for me to trust someone who does not deny the comments were his until nine years after they were made, how you can just take him at his very belated word is beyond me.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Getting dizzy?

That is some really powerful spin you got going on there.

It's actually kinda funny... Complete BS, but kinda funny, especially when you consider our own candidates on some issues.

First, lets get to reality. In 1996 the comments were brought and denied in the very statement you claim he didn't deny them. He said in 1996 that they words in the newsletter (of which he never claimed ownership of the words) were taken out of context and that he opposed racism. That is called a denial. Then when pressed in 2001 (during a presidential run) a more complete explanation was needed and given.


But, the comparrison to candidates like Edwards or Clinton is what I find remarkable.

Edwards Co-sponsors the war.

Says in 2004 he made the right choice and would do it again. (By this time ALL facts are known)

Facts later released showed he did have information when he co-sponsored the war bill and called Saddam the greatest threat ever.

By 2006 he is crying that he was wrong and didn't have all the information.

We are told we are supposed to accept Edwards' explanation and vote for him, despite the fact he wreaks of insincerity.



Sorry, but if trust is the issue, Ron Paul's story is far more consistent than the twisting, turning path one has to take to buy into Edwards', Clinton's Biden's or Dodd's convoluted excuses for killing people.


But we are supposed to accept those lies and not mention them.. but this idiotic story of racism is the REASON Ron Paul shouldn't be supported.

Forget his position on the issues, let's look at something from 1992 that has been debunked and focus on it.


You wonder why he is getting support?!?!?!?!

[chascarrillo]

27. Yes, I wonder why he is getting support

... from you.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. None from me.

I have stated several times REAL reasons not to vote for him.

You are the one following a debunked story rather than discussing the actual differences between his stances on the issues and whatever person you are supporting.

[Bjorn Against]

32. No but I see you are.

Who is my candidate again? I can tell you one thing, you did not even mention him in your post. You completely ignored the issue of Ron Paul claiming that those statements in his newsletter represented the "current events and statistics" of the time. What statistics support such racist statements?

Don't try and distract me by attacking "my candidate" when you obviously don't even know who my candidate is, if you want to defend Paul show me the "current events and statistics" that Paul was talking about.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Doesn't matter who your candidate is.

The fact that you can't actually discuss the ISSUES and would rather try and play spin games in some desperate attempt to play "gotcha" politics instead of actually discussing the differences in areas that really matter.

Try discussing why Ron Paul shouldn't be president in terms of why his POSITIONS are bad for the country instead of some made up racism BS.

[Bjorn Against]

81. I am discussing the issues, racism is a serious issue

And I have the quotes to prove he is a racist, you just keep insisting it is spin without offering any evidence that the words that were published under his name and claimed by him to be based off "current events and statistics" were not actually is. You just claim they aren't his words and expect us to believe you when you even said you don't have a link to debunk any of these claims.

[Milo_Bloom]

91. But there is no proof of racism here...

So can you now discuss a REAL issue instead of the phony one?

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

36. Self-delete

Didn't mean to post it in a sub-thread.

[skipos]

44. You should go tell everyone at stormfront.org that Paul isn't a racist

Not that it is true, but it would sure burst their bubble. They absolutely love him over there.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. So?

Lots of idiots like lots of people.

[skipos]

84. Sure, but white supremacists all love Ron Paul.

They don't care for any other candidate. Seriously, go check out that website, it is amazing. They go to rallies, give RP money, and strategize on the best way to get him elected. Why do you think that is?

[Milo_Bloom]

92. Why do I care about what idiots do?

[Alexander]

54. "You can tell who a terrorist is by the color of their skin" - Dr. Ron Paul.

Yeah, he's not a racist. :eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

68. You do realize that is from the same debunked story, right?

[chascarrillo]

71. No debunking

We asked you to provide a citation for this alleged debunking. You passed.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. There is no PROOF either way.

Thus stating the story as true is incorrect and debunked.

[FredScuttle]

87. PROOF, as you say, is on the side of us proclaiming Ron Paul a racist

you seem hell-bent on defending Ron Paul against accusations (based in fact) that he is, at best, tacitly supporting racism of the worst stripe.

You refuse to post even one measly link to Ron Paul stating, unequivocally, that he separates himself from the racists he's attracted to his campaign and who, funny enough, are filling up his coffers.

Ron Paul is, at the very least, welcoming to the worst strain of racist human filth that has ever contaminated the planet and you are agitated that we're pointing that out.....funny, that.

[Milo_Bloom]

88. Sorry, still no facts.

The only "fact" that has been presented is a newsletter he didn't write and if you had a basic understanding of how those types of newsletters worked, probably didn't even see. A story which has been completely debunked by lack of evidence.

"You refuse to post even one measly link to Ron Paul stating, unequivocally, that he separates himself from the racists he's attracted to his campaign and who, funny enough, are filling up his coffers"

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ... do you need me to feed you as well?

Here is the link you so desperately desire. I typed in Ron Paul Racist into youtube and this was on page 1.

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


So did you whine about racism when Howard Dean said that he wanted to be the candidate of guys with the confederate flag on their car? Where you one of those phony outrage people then too or was that different?


Still can't argue the actual issues I see... interesting.

[FredScuttle]

93. Hardeee-har-har

"I don't support white supremacists, but I'm happy to take their money"

:rofl:

and, no, I didn't whine about Howard Dean's comments because:

1) He wasn't embracing racists
2) He wasn't taking money happily from racists
3) He wasn't producting newsletters spewing racist garbage under his name and byline
4) He wasn't appearing in front of racist groups

I know how newsletters work and, in my humble, amateur experience, THE GUY WHOSE NAME IS ON THE FUCKING NEWSLETTER AND WHOSE NAME APPEARS IN THE BYLINE OF AN ARTICLE CALLING BLACKS "CRIMINALS" SHOULD BLOODY WELL KNOW WHAT'S GOING OUT IN HIS NAME....if he didn't write it or approve it, of course.

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Sorry, still no proof.

You can whine on and on with your phony outrage, but you are still avoiding any real issue by trying to appeal to shame using a debunked story.

And, no, you don't know how newsletters work.

[FredScuttle]

96. Yeah, because I never published an 8-page newsletter in my life

:eyes:

Dude, you are stretching the boundaries of reasonability here.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. What YOU did is not important.

The way the system works is that when someone thinks person X's opinion matters a newsletter may be published under person X's name. Person X often approves the concept and little else. They may look at the first few issues and then just let it go and never look at it.

When you have some actual proof of him making the statements, feel free to offer them. However, a 1992 newsletter written by someone else... find a new hunting dog, cuz that one died.

[Alexander]

98. Wow, sounds like we found the Ron Paul shill in our midst.

You made it pretty obvious. :eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

99. Except for the fact that I have repeatedly stated how bad he is on the issues.

Guess reading isn't your thing.

You might want to try a message board that uses pictures, instead of words.

[FredScuttle]

100. Thanks, W.R. Hearst

If I were a prominent citizen in Texas..an ex-Congressman, no less (as Grand Wizard Paul was, at the time), I'd take a little more interest in what was being published in my newsletter, going out under my byline!

[Milo_Bloom]

101. Actually, that is exactly when you don't.

The more prominent of a citizen you are, the more demands there are on your time and the less involved you are in an 8 page newsletter.

[FredScuttle]

103. No time to edit or review an 8 page newsletter?

What was he doing....delivering babies 24 hours a day in a drive-thru OB clinic? If Grand Wizard Paul was so "detached" from the publication, why in the hell was it going out under his name, with article UNDER HIS BYLINE?????

You can stop covering up for this racist piece of garbage anytime now....

[Milo_Bloom]

107. No reason to...

These things run themselves and the person whose name is on it usually has little to do with it once it is running.

You can stop using debunked stories instead of real issues anytime now...

[FredScuttle]

109. Are you contesting that the article in question went out under Ron Paul's byline?

Because that has not been "debunked" and it not made up out of thin air....it is a fact. It matters little that a ghostwriter came up with the actual racist garbage published in that rag....Ron Paul put his name on the byline and that means he owns it

I refer you to the DailyKos' take on Grand Wizard Paul:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/27/82626/692

[Milo_Bloom]

110. Not at all.

If you understood the way newsletters like this worked, you would know that there is a high likelyhood that the newsletter is never read by the person whose name is on it.


Whether he ever owned it or not, he repudiated the sentiment of the piece several times and the newsletter ceased operating.


The fact that some people, including KOS, don't know how these types of operations actually worked isn't my problem. The fact that someone COULD have reviewed something doesn't mean they did.

The fact is that there is 0 PROOF that Ron Paul wrote the column and 0 PROOF that he actually holds those beliefs.

The real fact is that there are tons of real issues to attack Ron Paul on, but out of fear, some cowards are choosing to try and play the race card on a debunked story.

[sellitman]

4. Every time I hear a Democrat cut this turd slack

I wanna puke.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. You need go no further than his avowed "states rights" stand

For more than a century and a half, "states rights" has been a code phrase for racisim, first with regards to slavery and latter with regards to Jim Crow. Not to mention the other uses of "states rights" to mean a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy, the death penalty for homosexuals and the abolition of a woman's right to control her own body.

[LanternWaste]

59. I think that statement is absolutely correct...

"states rights" has been a code phrase for racism".

I think that statement is absolutely correct. Every time I hear that phrase uttered, I place it in the context of racism and the senders message becomes much more clear to me.

[WoodrowFan]

8. Silly JD

Silly JD. Didn't you know that being backed by Stormfront isn't NEARLY as awful as being backed by the DLC?


Dave Neiwart at Orcinus has done some very, very good writing on "Dr" Paul and his love affair with the Bircher-racist far right.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

[no name no slogan]

13. He's also got a blimp

FOR REAL

You know who else had a blimp?
These guys

[SaveElmer]

18. I'll K&R that one...nt

[NobleCynic]

19. The? You mean there's only one?

Or that Paul's just the worst of the bunch?

Regardless, I still think Paul is useful. The more support he gets, the better. But only if he loses the primary. All of the nutjobs that get excited over him will be demoralized when he loses, and hopefully stay home for the general.

[Major Hogwash]

33. He's more overt than most of the rest, but they're all racists of different degrees,

There isn't a Republican yet who doesn't have a racist pedigree to some extent at the national level.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

37. Liberal radio host Mike Malloy has jumped the shark endorsing Ron Paul

He's back from Christmas vacation tonight, and has mentioned 4 or 5 times tonight he's planning to vote for Paul. I guess this would be assuming he runs as a third party candidate. Malloy has an obsessive hatred of Hillary, but I had no idea he'd take it to such ridiculous extremes.

[pepperbear]

38. Here's the thing; Ron Paul pretty much wants to privatize everything....

and for me that's a non-starter, given the integrity of big business these days. I don't even need him to be a racist to want to avoid him like the plague.

He lost me at "Hello".

[saltpoint]

39. I can't guess how far Paul will get in this cycle's election.

There's a chance that he will place ahead of Guiliani in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He seems to be good at raising cash and has tapped that angry demographic. I expect him to run as an independent, despite ballot access problems here and there.

But he's still competing in the Snowball-in-Hell Division for the presidency, and rightly so.

Make that Far Rightly so.

[underpants]

40. Okay he's done

Bye!

[no name no slogan]

80. That's

[WoodrowFan]

86. and he was recently endorsed by

and Paul was recently endorsed by the "Commander" of the American Nazi Party.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html

From the endorsement statement...
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Good thing Paul isn't a racist! golly!

[Milo_Bloom]

94. Wow, this gets funnier and funnier...

So let me get this right. As Ron Paul goes on to say that he doesn't support white supremecy and thinks they are wasting their money, the leader of a white supremecits groups "endorses" him by calling him a liar and then trying to convince people that Ron Paul is a good friend to white supremecits... and this is this person's way of trying to help Ron Paul??!?!?!?!?


Yeah, there's a reliable source with no motivation to lie.


LMAO

[WoodrowFan]

102. not just a river in Egypt

let's see. He published racist crap in his newsletter, opposes every piece of civil rights legislation, attends meetings with racist groups, meets their leaders in his Congressional offices, accepts money from their leaders, and is the most popular candidiate among Nazi and racist group emmbers, BUT he's not a racist?

riiiiggghhhtt

you, sir, are a fool., bye bye.

[Milo_Bloom]

108. Most of what you said is made up.