Discussions
Ron Paul as a Race Baiter
Posted by markstoneman • 1/13/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: election, racism, ron paul, us
There have been threads about Ron Paul here before, and I was always skeptical. A recent blog post by Deborah Lipstadt offers evidence of his race baiting.
lipstadt.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-race-baiter.html
Those of you who are considering voting for him should read this. If you think race baiting is okay, I can't help you. But if you care about the issue, you need to start thinking about a different candidate.
User Comments
-
He's been on the record saying that he never wrote that stuff, but he is a politician, so we'll never know the truth. As far as the election goes, he's like the rat terrier that won't let go of your leg. Biting I mean, not the other thing. Kucinich is doing the other thing.-
Check out this article at The New Republic, which is based in part on Ron Paul's newsletters. Pretty hard to deny that stuff. tinyurl.com/3caypg
-
Ha! Stoneman beat me to the punch by only three minutes! We think too much alike. -
Hell, I don't like the guy. I think he's full of crap with a ton of fanatical followers. Did you see the news a couple of days ago when his crazy people harassed Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes. Wow, walk on the opposite side of the road from those people.
-
-
Well the New Republic did post a small archive of articles from Ron Paul's newsletters that document fairly well that he spent decades developing a cozy relationship with racists:
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
These articles are put into context very well by TNR writer James Kirchik:
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca-
Just saw that stuff. Luckily for us, he'll never be elected for president. By the way, I'm not one of his psycho crazy followers. Just relaying what he was interviewed about a couple of days ago.
-
-
I haven't read the articles in question, so this is more of a theoretical statement than based specifically on the material at hand. Still, I think it's worth mentioning that racism doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent with Ron Paul's stated philosophies. He's a strong advocate for getting government out of the way and letting people and businesses act in whatever they deem to be in their own best interests, which seems to me entirely consistent with the freedom to discriminate if that's one's personal inclination.-
That's the thing, Tiffany. I'd always been a little suspicious. I'm glad someone now has gone out and done the research.
-
The basic sort of libertarian advocacy of weak central government and weak local government has generally been a position taken by American racists, largely because most major civil rights legislation is enforced by the federal government. We need only look at the "states' rights" and militia movements for examples. Bottom line though, even without racism, libertarianism doesn't strike me as a sane way to run a modern nation-state.
This is, of course, different in Europe where racist policies are more visibly connected with highly centralized national governments like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and their allies. Consequently, the self-stylized libertarian in Europe, unlike his or her American cousin, is more likely to be an anti-racist. -
well spoken IT
-
-
The thing is, though, GlossGreen, I have seen a couple rather sane progressives here express interest in Ron Paul. And he enjoys more respectability in the press than he deserves.
I'm not arguing for a specific candidate on these boards, but I do think this kind of thing deserves broader attention.-
And he has been able to raise a boatload of cash for his campaign. Where did that come from?
-
Mark, I think the reason for that is that he does say some things that are true and are generally not said out loud by major party candidates. That creates the impression that he's willing to be more honest--revolutionary, even--and take a different kind of look at the workings of government, and also sets him up as a sort of anti-government government possibility--something that undoubtedly holds a lot of appeal for people who are disillusioned by our government and don't dig too deeply into the facts and issues.
-
-
Very interesting articles, but they do sound a little like hit pieces to me. There's an awful lot of presuming and not a lot of direct quotes.-
How many more direct quotes could you want? Both pieces are full of them. The New Republic piece also lays out what the evidence is, what speaks for and against it, and what it means.
"Hit pieces"? I'm not sure what you mean by the term, but this is no conspiracy. Three decades worth of evidence is a lot. -
A link Ian gave above summarizes some of the evidence, in case the article contained too much analysis for your taste: www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
-
-
For the rest of you, here's a final quote from the New Republic analysis that makes sense to me:
"Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate." tinyurl.com/3caypg
That is the unfortunate thing. Ron Paul and his newsletters used to just be part of a lunatic fringe (albeit influential), but now the man gets a national audience. That he's toned down his message doesn't undo three decades of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and paranoia.-
I'd be nice if the mainstream press covers this more, or even better, if a question on this stuff shows up in a debate.
-
Since when do we, any of us, need the New Republics "permission" to enter the debate?
-
-
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy, I was just making the point that it sounded like political character assassination. It may all be the gospel truth ,I don't know, I was just making the point. I'm sure you could write virtually the same article on any of the candidates. The Republicans are hardly noted for their civil rights credentials.
-
"The Republicans are hardly noted for their civil rights credentials." -- But this piece, from a progressive publication, makes the mainstream Republicans look like saints by comparison.
-
It's only assassination if he didn't do it. If he did, it's justice.
-
> this piece, from a progressive publication,
> makes the mainstream Republicans look
> like saints by comparison.
Well, the current Republican leadership make Reagan and Nixon seem respectable.
However, I think characterizing "The New Republic" as 'progressive' is rather silly. They endorsed Joseph Lieberman in 2004 and have been largely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council which is probably the most right-leaning faction within the Democratic Party. TNR is progressive on civil rights issues but about as far to the right on economic and foreign policy as one can be and stay within the DNC coalition. It's really a center-right publication. -
I stand corrected. I don't read it that often.
-
-
Yeah of course if even a portion of that stuff is true, it's shocking.
-
I'm not shocked. Not in the least. The RNC as a whole has been silently courting extremists be they religious fundamentalists, militiamen, racists or all of the above for as long as I have been following politics. But again, I'm sensitive to these issues.
-
-
Ian neither the RNC or the DNC would be caught dead directly touching extreme fringe groups like this.... if anything, the DNC is a little more willing to chance it - but not the RNC.... This is mostly because the RNC can't overcome the news cycle on such unearthings like the DNC can.
Either way, they both pretty much leave it to their fringe special interest groups to coral these voters... They don't affiliate with them directly.
The DNC - is more likely to chance this, because a lot of their backing comes from George Soros, who is already on the fringe.... and since this has already passed muster with the media.... it's become a more established norm. Now groups like Move-On are able to dictate terms to the DNC or threaten to pull it's support...
No special interest in the RNC side has this kind of power except the evangelical base.-
I don't understand what you're saying. What on earth does the DNC have to do with Ron Paul or his racist allies?
-
What extremist fringe groups in the Democratic party?
It's been the Republicans who court fringe extremists. Pat Buchanan is a known anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier (he claimed that the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkeneau were impossible) and before he left to be the Reform party candidate in 2000, he was very much part of the Republican party-- he wrote speeches for Nixon. The RNC has been the xenophobia party for years. -
Well, for example, Fred Phelps was a registered Democrat (and ran for office as such), though I doubt he was intended by "fringe group" here. The Democrats have their nutters as well. -
Democrats have their share of nutters, but they aren't allowed to speak at the podium of their national conventions nor have leadership positions within the House and Senate, nor do the Democrats deliberately strategize to get "the nutter vote." That's the difference.
The Republicans, on the other hand, deliberately seek out the support of racists-- and that's what we see with Ron Paul, just as we have seen with Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and Pat Buchanant to give just a few examples. -
I personally think Ian is on to something. Whether this is a matter of conscious choice on the Democratic side is another matter. Maybe there is just less to be gained and more lost by pandering to the fringe? The math on the Republican side seems to be different.
-
stoneman and Ian: I agree wholeheartedly.
-
That's my point. Lyndon LaRouche can call himself a Democrat all he wants (that's exactly what he claims in his literature) but the DNC will never allow him or his followers to take a role within the party. Al Sharpton can run in as many Democratic primaries as he wishes, but his past history of extremism, means that the party activists will never support him.
The Republicans, on the other hand, use some of the most bigoted and extremist rhetoric in American politics-- Buchanan's speech about a culture war during the '92 convention, for instance; or Jesse Helms stating that that Bill Clinton shouldn't visit Fort Bragg without "a bodyguard" as if the President should fear an assassination from military personnel. These are pronouncements from the highest ranks of the RNC. -
Well now the TNR sounds pretty progressive, does it not?
(I'm teasing.)
-
-
Seriously.... despite the Ron Paul minions who have signed blood pacts to swarm any and every poll on the Internet to make it APPEAR the man has massive appeal, Ron Paul is a long long long long ways from having a shot in hell of securing the nomination.
If Iowa and New Hampshire were any clue.... it should be apparent that the man does not have a large following... He only has a very loud and increasingly obnoxious following - but when it comes to a real vote among those who do not have all day to swarm polls, he comes out in the extreme minority of the party.
And this is a very good development.
The man is a nut job that conservatives will NEVER seriously consider a valid candidate of their views.
The Dems went through something similar with Dean in the last election.
Howard Dean made an extremely strong showing last election cycle.... but when it came to the real vote, Kerry easily defeated him.
Yeeeeeoooooowwwww!-
He doesn't have a chance. You're right. But he is gaining respectability. He's gaining a broad national audience. That is a bad thing.
-
-
I've been hearing a lot lately about how much of a bigot he is, but to be honest I'm not yet convinced. Problem is that everything I've read and all the research I've done about it turns up a lot of heresay, but no substance. For example in his article about the riots in LA some people have taken issue with the fact that he tells us that blacks were to blame. Well, it might not be nice, but it's true. Or did I miss someone else rioting after the verdict?
In that very same article he points our how hardworking the Koreans who had their businesses ruined were. That's not the sign of a racist to me. It's a sign of a man who sees things very clearly in black and white. In fact it's a breath of fresh air for anyone who hasn't read anything by Ron Paul. He calls them (the oppressive black community) out while pointing out that they aren't the only ones who have had a tough go of it yet everyone else has managed to make something of it.
Ron Paul just makes sense. That's why he's good for the country. But everyone's right he hasn't got a prayer. He's not liberal enough for the liberals and not conservative enough for the conservatives. The only people who would consider him are freethinkers such as independents and libertarians. Everyone else would rather just stick their nose up the ass of the leader and follow.-
I don't have any particularly strong feelings on Ron Paul one way or the other, but I have big issues with people who think "freethinkers" means "people who agree with me" and assume that no one could possibly reach a different conclusion except because they were too stupid or lazy or sycophantic to think for themselves. I know a lot of intelligent people who give significant thought to issues and candidates and come to different conclusions than my own.
-
Then we agree that for the most part Americans are anything except freethinkers.
-
bsd13, he did more than point out that African Americans were rioting. He used racial slurs. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Did you read the whole New Republic article in detail? Did you look at the documentary evidence?
But why am I bothering? I started this thread to let non-racists know what he was about. I don't think you were my target audience. -
"He's not liberal enough for the liberals and not conservative enough for the conservatives. The only people who would consider him are freethinkers such as independents and libertarians. Everyone else would rather just stick their nose up the ass of the leader and follow."
This statement captures pretty well how he would like to see himself. You are repeating the party line pretty well here. Oh the irony. -
Stoneman - Sorry, I didn't see a racial slur in there. Where was/is it? And like I said all the "documentary evidence" I've seen has been 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best. Even the New Republic article says very plainly that they aren't 100% certain if Ron Paul actually wrote many of the articles in question. I'd bet he did, but my point is that no one is really sure. They just suspect.
So I guess the question is two fold. Is he not granted the benefit of the doubt like anyone else would (should) be if they were in the same situation?
Secondly why would we trust the New Republic to even attempt to be objective on the subject? They are a well known liberal rag that's been around since the 70s and clearly have an agenda. Trusting them as a reliable source of information would be very much akin to trusting Moveon, or Democratic Underground. Or Rush Limbaugh for his side of things.
And how would you describe me a racist? Do you even know me? Nope, you don't. So how exactly am I a racist? Because I'm not willing to just jump in your little line and echo the same bullshit you do? I used to have a black friend (I actually have a few, but this one in particular I've unfortunately lost contact with) and we'd sit around throwing racial slurs at each other all day long. I'd give some examples, but no doubt I'd get myself banned so instead I'll just tell what he called me (since that doesn't ever seem to upset anyone). Jewboy, kike humper, redneck honkey, whitey the oppressor, honkey, and many more. So was I the racist in this situation and he was just reacting to a situation he was forced into or what? Oh and we were roommates for 2 years. If I'm a racist I do a pretty crappy job of it. -
@bsd - please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about most Americans nor about "freethinkers". My comment was only about the narrow-minded arrogance of your assessment of anyone who might have reached a different conclusion from yours and the assumption that anyone who disagreed with you wasn't thinking.
-
"Even the New Republic article says very plainly that they aren't 100% certain if Ron Paul actually wrote many of the articles in question. I'd bet he did, but my point is that no one is really sure. They just suspect"
The NR article pointed out that it didn't matter if he wrote every single piece. There is decades worth of the stuff, all with his name on the title page. Now if you really want to believe he was that ignorant of what was happening under his name (which I don't, especially given the other personal associations to which the article speaks), then do you want someone like that running a government? -
MadameX - You clearly missed my point when you assumed that I was saying anyone who didn't agree with me or my position is not a "freethinker". In fact what I was saying is that anyone who takes a position simply because it is the popular party line of either the republican or the democrats is not thinking at all. Sadly that is how the vast majority of Americans are when comes to politics.
-
I didn't make any assumptions, bsd--your language was clear. If don't mean to apply your statements categorically, you should avoid terminology like "only" and "everyone else". Perhaps a basic course in formal logic would allow you to express your arguments more accurately.
-
As far as the racism, homophobia, paranoia stuff goes, I have perhaps a different idea about prejudice. I figured the racist slant to the quotes in the NR was clear. If it's not, then I have to wonder what kind of cultural awareness i am dealing with here. Still, here are a few samples:
"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "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. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided." www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf
Praise for David Duke: www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
Or how about this kind of language a few months before the Oklahoma bombing: " "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin" www.tnr.com/downloads/January1995.pdf
Or would you call that free thinking?
These and other specific issues are cited and linked to at www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
And try reading the article more closely. It points out what the weaknesses and strengths of the sources are.
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca Your argument that he might not have written each quote, or even any of them, is beside the point. But it is also a typical tactic of, for example, Holocaust deniers. Rather than look at the big picture and the overwhelming weight of evidence, you will pick up one little thing and attempt to sow doubt. In this case your effort fails miserably. Do you really think Paul bears no responsibility for decades of newsletters that bore his name?
This brings me back to my personal attacks on you. No, I don't know you personally. I am just judging your sentiments by your words here. If I am wrong, I'm sorry. So far, though, you have only reenforced my belief to the contrary. -
stoneman - I've never said I wanted Ron Paul running the government. I'm undecided at this point. We've got a long ways to go and I'm certain a lot more dirt will be dug up on all of them.
Why do you assume because I don't jump on the little "attack Ron Paul" bandwagon that's going around I automatically support him? In fact I don't because he's a career insider. I support his position on many things, but he doesn't have what it takes to run the nation. Hell I'd vote for Clinton over him, and I will NEVER vote for her. So I guess I do have an idea who I'd vote for, or rather who I won't. -
"Why do you assume because I don't jump on the little "attack Ron Paul" bandwagon that's going around I automatically support him?"
I don't. But you also seem to be saying there's no problem there. Indeed, you see the skeletons in his closet as no worse than any in the other candidates. Personally, racial and homosexual baiting as well as consorting with Duke and militias, not to mention encouraging violence against the sate . . . well, I'd be surprised if you could dig up such dirt on the others. These are some serious problems. -
No MadameX actually you made plenty of assumptions. But now it's my turn. I'm going to assume that you have never in your life been wrong about anything. Or rather I'm going to assume you've never had the balls to say "I was wrong in my assumption" so with that in mind I won't expect you to do anything except claim to be right.
-
So when you tire of examining arguments embedded in language you turn to personal attacks. Class act.
-
stoneman - I don't see any racial slurs in the examples you gave. Off color, certainly but not racial slurs. You also have to realize it was a different time and culture than it is now. I grew up in a small town (
-
stoneman - I don't see any racial slurs in the examples you gave. Off color, certainly but not racial slurs. You also have to realize it was a different time and culture than it is now. I grew up in a small town (
-
stoneman - I don't see any racial slurs in the examples you gave. Off color, certainly but not racial slurs. You also have to realize it was a different time and culture than it is now. I grew up in a small town (
-
stoneman - I don't see any racial slurs in the examples you gave. Off color, certainly but not racial slurs. You also have to realize it was a different time and culture than it is now. I grew up in a small town (500 people). I might not be as enlightened as you big city folks, especially while living there, but I do know that sometimes things are ok in one setting but not in another.
But let's take a look at something, one of the quotes you posted.
"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "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. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
The first thing to do is figure out if in fact that actually happened. Did the violence subside on the third day and was it welfare day?
Friday May 1 1992 was in fact Welfare check distribution day and it was the third day of the riots.
Rioting began to subside on the third day. Can we make a connection between the distribution of welfare checks on that day and the rioting starting to slow down? Maybe, maybe not. My point is that Ron Paul's statement is historically accurate at least the first part of it. -
Holy repeat performance batman!
and Stoneman I've not attacked anyone personally. She has decided to tell me what I was saying. I figured if it's good for the goose it is good for the gander. -
The "lazy", welfare recipient of the ghetto is a common stereotype behind which lays racism. I'm not going to write an article here on the subject though.
-
-
i thought i did alot of threads -
At worst, he's guilty of neglecting to check up on these people who were publishing newsletters in his name.
The articles weren't written by him, and if you've read any of his writings, he praises both Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi frequently.
When you espouse freedom, you're bound to get a lot of fringe nuts who like the government trampling on their freedom of speech rights no more than anyone else does. It's sad but true.-
Regarding who wrote the garbage, see my statements above.
-
On this Stoneman is right. Even if he didn't actually pen the articles in question he bears a certain amount of responsibility for them simply by the fact that they have been attributed to his name by virtue of appearing in his newsletter. If he didn't write them he certainly should have been made aware of them either by his reading of them at some point, or by a staffer pointing them out.
-
-
May we assume that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell? That said, what role does he play for the republicans? Is he just there to pull the libertarian vote into the republican party? If he does not get the republican nomination, does he plan to disappear from the scene? If he doesn't plan to disappear from the scene, won't any vote for him ultimately take a vote away from the republican party and therefore put more clout in the democratic party candidate? Perhaps the democrats aren't villianizing him too much yet because he not only will dig his own grave but only shed dark light on the conservatives who do, or want to, back him?
-
Ron Paul is like Ross Perot. He's running on the republican ticket, but that's only because it is the only way in American politics to get noticed. If you run as an independent you generally don't have a prayer. Americans are too brainwashed by the two major parties.
Back to my point... he's like Ross Perot who doesn't have a prayer to win, but he sure as hell could cause problems for a candidate who does have a chance. Especially if it's a close race the votes that he draws could easily cause problems.
I actually blogged about it a while back www.ablogaboutnothing.com/the-ron-paul-effect-ala-ross-perot/ -
Oh really? I don't recall Ross Perot advocating the kind of garbage that I see in these old newsletters.
-
Uh... the point wasn't Perot's or Paul's opinions on anything it was how they draw votes away from other candidates.
-
And my point is that shifting the debate in this thread to that issue trivializes the problems I mention.
Still, he is an electoral factor, as you say. Now do the Republicans have enough guts to try and fight him with this dirt? -
I don't think there's any need for them to try and fight him with this dirt. Electorally he's a non-issue for anyone except in the event of a tight race (ala Clinton, Bush, Perot) at which point I have no doubt they'll cover him in as much dirt as they can. Right now they are all jockeying for position.
-
If the Republican race becomes close, and Paul has enough money to stay in for a long time, then he becomes a factor in the primary too, no?
-
Possibly, but I can't see them taking the focus off one another enough to truly go after Ron Paul. If you've noticed they've done their best to marginalize him and have been pretty effective at it. Until there is a clear front runner I don't think we'll see anyone paying him much attention.
-
-
I knew Ron Paul attracted the wrong people and never listened or read anymore about him.
I was looking at some youtube videos and saw a video of this White Supremists group back him and wondered wth was going on...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafeVz8eP0U this is the video I watched a few months ago.
So i was left with Clinton and O'bama I wish they were both in office. One Pres other Vice... I guess. Paul is not or was never on my list for anything.
I don't understand why some of the people who claim they want an "equal" nation tell their readers to vote for him or support him. Maybe some bloggers haven't seen this yet.-
What about Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter, Keyes, etc?
-
Disturbing video, Zawadi. Thanks. Now has Ron Paul disavowed such support? The NR article suggests not, though I don't recall it talking about this despicable group.
-
What about them, BSD? What are you trying to say?
-
I'm pointing out something I brought up before. That being that so many people make up their minds when it comes to politics based solely on political party lines.
-
Well, there are some pretty stark differences between the mainstreams of each party.
-
That there are, but I'm a huge believer in voting for the candidate not the party. My grandmother always votes democrat no matter what. Period. She only needs to know who is in the democratic party. My father always voted republican no matter what. I know lots of people like those two and it's really rather sad, imo.
-
I can separate candidates from national politics at the local level. I can't do it at the presidential level. If I had a vote in Congress, which as a DC resident I don't, I would also probably care about the party. I recall people going across party lines a lot more when I was younger, but something happened in the 1990s. Was it with the 1994 Republican upset and Newt Gingrich's new leadership and management style? I'm not sure, but party matters too much these days for me to ignore.
-
bsd: sad... but a fact of life. I think most people, or a lot of people on these discussion forums have already gotten past that stage... only voting for someone because they have the right label attached. Most people know which candidates best represent their views... and sometimes that means that party lines stay in place from one candidate and election to the next.
-
i think this has happened, SM, b/c of the intersection of religious values with political values... and a great divide has ensued.... one side believing they are on god's side... and the other side suspecting they are on god's side but not really caring as much about being on that side of god as the other side.
huh?
i apologize for bringing the G word into this thread. -
freeatlast: You'll notice that most of this thread is not about a particular party, but one man who calls himself a Republican, a racist who the Republicans would do well to disavow, if they had any backbone, a racist who some on the left feel drawn too because of his anti-establishment and anti-war rhetoric. It's about Ron Paul and his ugly past.
-
freeatlast - I doubt God could careless one way or another about our silly little political parties except that they would further his kingdom.
-
SM... i realize that... i think i didn't make it clear who i was responding to with my response...
bsd... nevermind.
-
-
bsd13 I vote on who has my best intrests first and only. I am a Dem. and will be dropping that this year, but not to be a Republican either.
They are one in the same.
I also believe that our leaders are chosen before our votes are cast also.-
I went independent about 6 years ago. Was tired of the crap, but it made my vote even more meaningless as I often can't even vote in primaries.
I believe that we choose the leader. Out of the two or three selections that other people give us to choose from. Seriously who the hell honestly believed that George Bush or John Kerry were our two best possible choices? Yet they were our only choices. -
You could vote in the primaries in my old state, New Hampshire, whose electoral system was made for an independent. I miss voting there.
edit: I mean you could, if you moved there, of course. -
I've been looking at the housing situation up there for the past month actually. One of the draws is exactly that. That and I'd like to be able to have my guns without everyone going into convulsions over a little piece of metal. But that's another thread.
-
And you would have the right to risk killing yourself on a motorcycle without helmet. Another thread too.
-
Mark, excellent post and (disturbing) article in the New Republic. As an Independent, I have not been quiet sure who I'd vote for this election; I am so unhappy with Bush-1&2 and don't want another Clinton in the office. Anyhow, I thought about Ron Paul, but this information clearly cancels this option out.
Voting for a President of our nation is complicated on many levels, primarily because I simply don't have confidence in either the Rep. or Dems. The more I learn and see, the more the political line between them is obscure.
-
-
saintluke.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/william-t-patton/#comment-683
by William T. Patton, Jr.
Regarding the Washington Post’s hit piece editorial on Dr. Ron Paul, “Ron Paul’s Appeal” January 11, it should now be clear to any one following the 2008 presidential campaign to what extent the mainstream media will dismiss, slander, and purposefully misrepresent the views of any presidential candidate who dares to question the status quo, failed economic and foreign policies of the United States federal government.
Regardless of Paul’s libertarian views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Civil War, and of the derogatory comments printed in his newsletter, Paul is arguably the most pro-gay rights, pro-Israel, anti-racist candidate in the Republican field. Paul voted with a minority of Republicans against the Same Sex Marriage Amendment. Paul advocates ending foreign aid packages to Israel’s Arab neighbors as well as aid to Israel, thereby, allowing the Israelis to engage their enemies in a manner of their own choosing.
It is telling that the Post aligned Paul’s foreign policy views solely with the often-maligned Pat Buchanan when the identical hypothesis Paul offers is also articulated by respected professors such as Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson as well as countless ex-CIA and retired military officers. In fact, it is the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the U.S. airbase in Saudi Arabia partially motivated the 19 terrorists who attack us on 9/11; the Bush Administration soon removed the base at the request of the Saudi Royal Family after the attacks.
Paul has said on many occasions that he views Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks as “personal heros” for using non-violent civil disobedience to change government policies. Paul, along with President Jimmy Carter, has recently questioned the power of the FBI to use warrantless wiretaps by reminding us that Dr. King was the victim of FBI interference because of his opposition to the Viet Nam War. In fact, it is Paul’s views on U.S. foreign policy would be most aligned with King’s views from the 1960s. King thought the non-violet philosophies of Jesus and Gandhi were best suited to confront racism and evils which man faces, including communism.
Mrs. Coretta Scott King was asked by Tavis Smiley in interview shown at her funeral what she would say to those who claim that her husband never had to deal with an Osama bin Laden. Mrs. King quickly replied that if the philosophies of her late husband were practiced by our government, “there would not be an Osama bin Laden.” Ron Paul is one of few political leaders in Washington capable of even understanding what Mrs. King meant by her answer.
Apparently, Mrs. King and Dr. Paul’s policy views are suspiciously beyond the comprehension of the Washington Post editorial board as well. As to Paul’s “idiosyncratic economic views,” sure, let us keep borrowing hundreds and billions of dollars per year to fight people who live in caves. Will this magnitude of spending cause inflation? No, the dollar is just becoming “more competitive” the “real” economists say.
To the Post: Keep portraying Ron Paul as a lunatic, for in the Orwellian universe in which we live he is one. For those of us who possess even a basic knowledge of history, economics and who oppose a foreign policy of perpetual war, Paul is indeed the man “later believed to be a lunatic, for what he said made no sense” from Mark Twain’s “The Way Prayer.” -
freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com/2008/01/berns-letter-to-his-fil-re-ron-pau...
Bern's letter to his FIL re: Ron Paul
Hi XXXX,
I am aware that you consider Ron Paul a kook and were a bit surprised when XXXX mentioned to you the other day that I have decided to support him. She has encouraged me to discuss it with you, so I'm writing to hopefully explain things cogently.
I have been doing a *lot* of reading and researching over the last few weeks. I have also been participating in a few discussion forums here and there to get different perspectives.
I have come to find that many of the people that I have encountered who hold the position that Ron Paul is a kook have not really investigated what he is saying closely. He tends to answer questions in debates from an academic (sometimes philosophical) viewpoint and sometimes is not able to fully elucidate his thoughts in the short time frames given (I don't hold it against him that he isn't a polished "politician"). What little mainstream media reporting there is of him is almost always misrepresenting what he is about (* more on that at the end of this letter), so it is difficult to understand why anyone would support him unless they have looked a bit deeper into what he is really all about. Fortunately, there is a plethora of material available on the internet from his writings, voting record and in-depth video interviews for anyone who is interested to get a better understanding (more on that in a bit).
(continued, see link above) -
zealfortruth.org/2008/01/ron-paul-a-racist/
Ron Paul a Racist?
Published by Colin 2 days, 14 hours ago in Current Events.
Tags: 2008, Election, Huckabee, New Republic, Newsletters, Racism, Rebublican, Ron Paul.
The following is an editorial and represents the author’s opinion and not any views of this site, its other authors or contributors.
Both the left and right political establishment are salivating over a rare opportunity to knock around a man who has had no scandals, no marital issues, no political waffles, no changes of heart, no demagoguing and represents the most constitutional, conservative approach to enter the mainstream of politics since Senator Robert Taft. There has literally been no ammo whatsoever for the neo-socialist liberals or the big government conservatives who are terrified of what Ron Paul represents - a man of integrity, whose personal life and principles are nearly as pure as the gold standard which he advocates.
(continued at link above) -
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm
January 17, 2008 at 09:37:12
Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges
by James W. Harris Page 1 of 5 page(s)
www.opednews.com
I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I have followed his career since the 1980s, and I have often referred to him as "the greatest Congressman since the days of the Founding Fathers." Though I live outside Texas, I have always considered him my true representative in Congress because of his brave, lonely, and remarkably consistent stands for peace, civil liberties and limited government.
(I should point out that I do paid and volunteer work for the Advocates for Self-Government, a non-partisan libertarian educational organization that Ron Paul has praised; similarly, the Advocates, like most libertarian organizations, has praised, in a non-partisan way, Paul’s work. My thoughts in this article are my own; I do not speak for the Advocates. Nor am I associated in any way with Paul’s campaign.)
(Continued - see link above) -
Okay Freedom, you're getting carried away here. This thread is supposed to be a discussion thread, not one speech after another. Next time, if there is a next time, how about writing some blog posts and posting links here?
Actually, you seem to be reposting material from someone's blog here anyway. Do you have permission to do that?
I can't possibly read all this, not least because it will annoy me too much. I started the thread not to argue with diehard supporters, but to make sure any open-minded supporters were aware of some significant evidence about Paul's ugly past. You can't be helped. I understand that.-
I agree with Stoneman-- if you cannot take into account the vast number of statements made in Ron Paul's newsletters over a period of decades, then your argument will not hold water.
Furthermore, citing that Ron Paul agrees with some statements made by Noam Chomsky (as an academic, is Chomsky respected outside the field of linguistics? Do historians and political scientists take Chomsky seriously?) demonstrates nothing, especially when the statement of agreement is vague.
Citing statements by the late Coretta Scott-King about Osama bin Laden is a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with Ron Paul, anyway. -
"Okay Freedom, you're getting carried away here."
I could say the same about you. You keep stating Ron Paul is a racist as if it's true. I disagree, but after reading this entire thread I don't get you'd be interested.
"This thread is supposed to be a discussion thread"
Really?
"and posting links here?"
Yes, I posted some links.
"I can't possibly read all this, not least because it will annoy me too much."
I get the impression you're not open to any viewpoint other than the one you've been constantly harping on here. Will it really annoy you too much to consider another viewpoint? Why is that? If so, why would I bother presenting one to you?
"I started the thread not to argue with diehard supporters, but to make sure any open-minded supporters were aware of some significant evidence about Paul's ugly past."
I other words, this isn't really an open discussion. I thought that might be the case. And that's why I copied & pasted - I wasn't sure it would be worth my time to write something original here. Just checking.
"You can't be helped. I understand that."
That was nasty and condescending. Not surprising, though. I won't be bothering with you anymore.
If there's anybody here who really is open-minded, please consider the possibility that Ron Paul isn't racist (I don't think he is, and I've known about him since 1984), and read what he has actually written. Ron Paul has never said or written anything resembling what was in those letters.
formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-sme... -
[edit] You've known him since 1984? Yes, I remember you saying that. Impressive. And a little scary. [/edit] The only conclusions I can draw is that you haven't looked at the evidence presented in the first part of this discussion, or you are not paying attention, or you do not want to pay attention, or there are a few skeletons in your closet too.
But if you want to find Ron Paul supporters on BC, you can. Just do a Discussion Search (in the right-hand bar). There have been more than a few, though none real recently, as near as I can tell.
-
-
Stoneman,
I understand your concern, but you should actually research Ron Paul's stance on issues instead of accepting opinions from an obvious smear campaign. I respect you right to have a negative opinion on him, but at least make it an *informed* opinion.
I suspect that you don't know a whole lot about the current state of our political-economic situation.-
It's not "an obvious smear campaign." The sources speak a clear language.
-
Scholarpreneur-
The sources that Stoneman and I are citing are Ron Paul's own newsletters. The only one "smearing" Ron Paul is his own past.
I happen to familiar with some of Ron Paul's less controversial opinions as well, especially with regards to his theory of government, and he strikes me as foolish and simple-minded-- but I think that's what happens when you attempt to solve 21st century problems with an 18th century philosophy. -
Sorry, I should have said "hit piece."
But my point still stands. Don't be so easily manipulated. -
I have a suggestion for you SP. How's about you figure out who you are talking to here? Then decide whether you are in a position to tell Ian an me that we should not allow ourselves to "be so easily manipulated." Yes, you're doing well in school, by your own account on your blog, but apparently you haven't had a solid source-based class yet.
-
-
IanThal,
I don't really believe you are familiar with Ron Paul, or anything related 18th century philosophy for that matter.
His views are based on *very* heavy stuff, the work of hundreds of years of philosophy and history.
So, disagree with him for whatever reason you want, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you're going to have to do better than, "His opinions are simple minded."-
Since the racial comments were made in his own newsletters I'd say there is a problem there. Even if he didn't actually write them, it's his newsletter. If that aspect is true the premise of him being simple minded is very plausable to me. -
SP, I see you didn't do the homework I asked you to do. Can't help you then.
-
> I don't really believe you are familiar with Ron Paul,
Other than the proposals that he has shared with the public in interviews, in public statements, and his newsletters?
> or anything related 18th century philosophy for that matter.
Sorry guy. My academic training includes both a Bachelors and Masters degree in philosophy-- and since my departments were both part of what is informally known as "the continental school" we took a very historical approach to philosophical texts.
Ron Paul's political philosophy (and capitalist-libertarianism in general) is stuck in the 18th century-- it's clear from his own statements that he is clueless about the functions of a modern nation-state or a global economy (for good or for bad) and that's in part because such things barely existed when John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson were writing. The only "founding father" who has ever struck me as being profoundly forward thinking was Alexander Hamilton-- but there was no real theorist of the modern nation and modern society until G.W.F. Hegel published his "Philosophy of Right"-- and its most profound influence on American political philosophy came through the pragmatism of John Dewey.
-
-
Stoneman,
My contention is that you and others getting riled up over a relatively minor issue of a certain candidate, and that is exactly the point of that hit piece. It serves as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. Just like the recent Obama/Hillary Martin Luther King fiasco, it's just a diversion.
So while Ron Paul talks about us literally selling our country to China or how fiat money is essentially a tax on the American people, you'd rather latch, in faux outrage, onto this issue of political correctness.
If you want to throw him out as a candidate, fine, but give REAL reasons.-
Decades of clear racism is not a minor issue. Support of the militia movement is not a minor issue. Read the rest of his own newsletters and see if it amounts to the same thing as the stupid feud that Clinton's and Obama's campaigns fought over the weekend. Remember, we're talking decades of purposeful newsletter campaigning.
[edit] Racism is "real." It's not a minor issue. Did you pay attention in American and European history classes? Have you been reading about ethnic violence in the news? [/edit]
I also think Paul's libertarianism is absurd, but I'm leaving that alone, because that can be a legitimate philosophical dispute.
[edit] In case the thread was too long for you, here is your chance to read some of the actual newsletters in question. Just follow the links and you'll have PDF scans of the things: www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 [/edit]
[edit again] And maybe you missed this message of support of Ron Paul, which to my knowledge he has not denounced: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafeVz8eP0U If these are minor issues, not real, then you should perhaps examine where your priorities lay. [/edit again] -
-