Ron Paul either a liar or incompetent

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you show a link to where he accepted responsibility for the articles, and apologized for them?

He says it right there in the video that ballz posted.

[lew]

Ron Paul's Racism in Action

[motivez]

Being a racist isn't really the same as the other two examples you've brought up

I don't think he's a racist either, but it does raise some questions about his ability to do the job, so do you have those links I asked for?

[Thorgrim]

Even if he wrote those things, you said he's not a racist

So he sees things he's admitted were racist, and his publication...NEVER ISSUED A RETRACTION even after supposedly "fired" the person involved

Please tell me how a person of good judgement goes all the way to firing a person for their comments, and doesn't even make a retraction right after that?

You think if CNN, NYTimes, etc had a field reporter who printed a news story saying all "Iraqis are *racial slur* and there's proof because of *bullshit*" ofcourse not only would he be fired from their international team, but they'd issue a sincere and lengthy retraction IMMEDIATELY

Fuck, if a newsletter has my name...and has gone out to...dozens of homes or hundreds whatever, and I find out there's this crazy racist shit in there, I'm issuing a retraction so people know my name doesn't stand for that shit

I don't wait until I'm confronted with it by someone else...that's EXTREMELY poor judgement and IMO in and of itself a disqualifier for president

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think some people are irrationally defending Ron Paul on this when they wouldn't be doing the same if it were another politician. This is a ding on his candidacy. I understand some are willing to give him a pass on it because they have their minds made up about him and respect the guy, but to someone else it looks pretty bad.

The fact is, none of the people complaining about this were ever going to vote for him anyway.

I haven't spoken with you since you left OT, but I suspect he had no chance with you and if I looked through your posts here I'd find you calling him an idiot on foreign policy or whatever else.

I know this to be the case with the other people who are complaining about it.

I also contrast this with the fact that we all know he's got no significant chance of taking the nomination anymore, and it becomes clear that simply winning against him wasn't enough for some people. They want to ruin him. They want to ruin one of the final small government conservatives out there.

The hatred for him is not just on message boards such as this one - it's also at local republican party meetings and gatherings. People hate him either because he's a 'lunatic' with his monetary policy (nevermind the fact that they only bothered learning keynesian economics in highschool), or because he's a 'lunatic' with his foreign policy of 'isolationism'.

This is just one more extension of that. The people bringing it up for the most part are republicans. The same republicans that want his voice silenced.

That's how I personally see it at least. I'm not saying he's blameless here. I AM, however, saying that it's obvious that this is the case because he's obviously not a racist or anti semite. Anyone who does even the slightest bit of research into his history of actions knows this. Actions speak louder than words.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you show a link to where he accepted responsibility for the articles, and apologized for them?

Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters — Ron Paul 2008

[Simius]

Originally Posted by lew

Look hard

Alright I have a smoking gun.

YouTube - Ron Paul Responds to racism allegations on CNN

He not only calls black people black... which is a highly offensive term to describe African Americans. But he says that 67% of blacks are in prison, which is an outright lie.

"If you want to look for discrimination it is in the judicial system. 14% of the inner city blacks commit drug crimes. 67% of blacks are in prison. That's discrimination. That is the judicial code I am attacking. And that is not racism.... ....I am the only candidate who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Simius

Alright I have a smoking gun.

YouTube - Ron Paul Responds to racism allegations on CNN

He not only calls black people black... which is a highly offensive term to describe African Americans. But he says that 67% of blacks are in prison, which is an outright lie.

"If you want to look for discrimination it is in the judicial system. 14% of the inner city blacks commit drug crimes. 67% of blacks are in prison. That's discrimination. That is the judicial code I am attacking. And that is not racism.... ....I am the only candidate who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."

doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but calling a black person black is an insult?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but calling a black person black is an insult?

When a year's wages are on the line... yes. yes it is.

[avsp]

His inability to finally put this to bed actually shows him to be a bit inept.

Either the newsletter was official or it wasnt
If it was where are the condemnation in subsequent editions? If is wasnt official why doesnt he loudly say so?

Claiming that it doesnt matter coz he is a constitutionalist is appeasement IMO. Claiming it doesnt matter electorially as those overly concerned with such allegations were never going to vote for him seems both specious & incorrect IMO. Every vote counts & this will cost him potential voters. A a presidential candidate needs the widest appeal.

The question isnt is he a lair or incompetant but did he ever explictly seek support from active racists. I suspect that he did.

Meanwhile
I see a local Texan NAACP offical has come out to support him. Odd as I'd've thought RP would be vigourously opposed to NAACP coz of 'special pleading' & 'collectivist' grounds.

[DavidHenry]

The funny thing about these stupid charges of racism is that Paul wants to help blacks.

[DavidHenry]

Originally Posted by Simius

But he says that 67% of blacks are in prison, which is an outright lie.

"

What is the number?

[Ardentfrost]

I think it was 67% of people in prison are black. That's how I heard it, and it's a stat I've heard before. If he said it backwards, I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue

[Ardentfrost]

And just to get this straight, no one in this thread thinks RP is a racist, right? This is ALL about him getting a newsletter started to try to get the ideas of freedom out there, it getting out of control because the editor he hired was apparently inept thus creating a situation where he had to shut the whole project down, and him not knowing specifically who wrote those particular articles since that person had nothing to do with RP directly?

Am I summing this up correctly?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by DavidHenry

The funny thing about these stupid charges of racism is that Paul wants to help blacks.

IIUC this isnt the case, ..., he is opposed to notions of such 'special pleading'.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And just to get this straight, no one in this thread thinks RP is a racist, right? This is ALL about him getting a newsletter started to try to get the ideas of freedom out there, it getting out of control because the editor he hired was apparently inept thus creating a situation where he had to shut the whole project down, and him not knowing specifically who wrote those particular articles since that person had nothing to do with RP directly?

Am I summing this up correctly?

Was the debated issue the last ever edition of the newsletter?

I think he may be guilty of at the least of being insufficiently anti-racist, ..., where is his condemnation/retraction at the time?

This is the only thing he needs to do to totally clear his name. Its also probably the only way that he can clear his name

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thewise1

The fact is, none of the people complaining about this were ever going to vote for him anyway.

I wouldn't go that far. There's a very good chance I would vote for him. I believe Motivez even donated to his campaign, I believe the only campaign he contributed to this primary. This isn't a small thing to brush aside.

The reality is it was HIS newsletter. Even if he didn't write the articles he must have screened them and placed in his newsletter. He must have assigned them to a page layout. He's acting as if he had no say in this and was innocent of their publishing. I find that to be a bit absurd... not to mention he refused to refund the money donated to him by the old grandwizard of the KKK. All of this adds up and makes him look pretty bad.

[Ardentfrost]

The internet wasn't as widespread when the newsletter was going, so I'm not sure, though from his explanation it sounds like he did apologize back then, took responsibility, explained himself to his district who is obviously ok with it because he's been elected a lot since then.

It did happen, however, before he got in Congress this run (after his old run). The quotations in question happened in 1992 and he ran for office again in 1996. The quotes were brought up in the run, he explained them, and his district obviously thought it was a good enough explanation as they have elected him 10 times.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[100] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]

As for what happened to the newsletter, it's difficult to find specific shit about its history, but I submit to you this: Ron Paul's Freedom Reports

Notice how Jan/Feb 2002 is the last issue until it is resurrected in 2006. That is the issue the racist comments were made.

So it does seem that the project was stopped after that happened, as it probably should have been. The project is no longer affiliated with Ron Paul, although they obviously (from that page) endorse him.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The internet wasn't as widespread when the newsletter was going, so I'm not sure, though from his explanation it sounds like he did apologize back then, took responsibility, explained himself to his district who is obviously ok with it because he's been elected a lot since then.

It did happen, however, before he got in Congress this run (after his old run). The quotations in question happened in 1992 and he ran for office again in 1996. The quotes were brought up in the run, he explained them, and his district obviously thought it was a good enough explanation as they have elected him 10 times.



As for what happened to the newsletter, it's difficult to find specific shit about its history, but I submit to you this: Ron Paul's Freedom Reports

Notice how Jan/Feb 2002 is the last issue until it is resurrected in 2006. That is the issue the racist comments were made.

So it does seem that the project was stopped after that happened, as it probably should have been. The project is no longer affiliated with Ron Paul, although they obviously (from that page) endorse him.

Thanks for research. But I dont understand where the comments made on 92 or 02?

He needs to push any written repudiation that he made at the time.
He should probably also name the original author as his claims appear disengenious otherwise, ..., afterall he owes the person no loyalty

[lew]

Originally Posted by Simius

When a year's wages are on the line... yes. yes it is.