Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love

[FlipPro]

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

Exactly, Ron Pauls "ideology" is one of a man that is stuck making excuses, for a lifetime of bold-faced racism.

Anyone who digs deep enough will see the truth...

[1714033102]

1714033102

[1714033102]

1714033102

[1714033102]

1714033102

[1714033102]

1714033102

[NASDAQEnema]

Looking more now he seems better than anyone actually participating in the system could be.

But the fictions of borders and the constitution are very damaging. Paper, maps or laws, don't give some humans special status.

They announce that you intend to use that space for an indefinite amount of time, for private purposes, and you have absolutely no intention of lowering your own freedom by submitting to the subordinating requirement of explaining to some random hysterical paranoid control freaks what your purpose is.

No borders is dividing by zero in terms of neighbor relations. Good luck with that one.

[EndTheBanks]

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has been removed.

[FlipPro]

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.

Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....

[EndTheBanks]

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.

Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....

I haven't been reading Alex Jones lately. I have been reading the civilian reports of continued American oppression.

[NASDAQEnema]

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.

Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....

Let me make it simple. The Iraqi leadership evicted us, meaning a certain class of personnel have to leave. However, quasi civilian personnel are staying in a nice new building we built.

Also we are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Hovering over Syria, Iran, Israel.

And the main issue is not Iraq (where the hell do you get your news? CNN?). The main issue is that we have bases in 130 countries.

Finally, what part of Indefinite Detention do you not understand? Obama wanted to veto that thing because it had a provision for American citizens to be excluded (migrant workers, Native Americans, are not real people under Obama... pretty soon gays, blacks, midgets). Now it doesn't have any protection for anyone except le signing statement.

Also the SOPA makes it possible to shut down a site by mere accusation, which means if you criticize the detention you will be called a pirate and you will be shutdown.

Do you understand now or will you continue shoving Cheetos and six packs in your mouth while the country burns down?

Withdrawal my ass.

[bb113]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

I'll start with this. That is some very creative use of ellipses by Judd Legum of Think Progress. Here is the actual transcript. Besides that guy taking things out of order, the CNN analyst also referrs to 'The Ron Paul Report". There were a number of these newsletters (called The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Political Report)" so its difficult to tell exactly what shes actually referring to. Anyway, I don't think either of those things are such a big deal, but it does make it more confusing for anyone trying to figure out whats going on.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST (on camera): And let me ask you, I mean, you've been answering a lot of questions lately about the newsletters that were published under your name and some of the things contained in them were conspiracy theories, some of them -- some of them are considered racist, and you -- you know, you've disavowed them completely.
But they were called "The Ron Paul Report." And did you read them at all when they were -- when they were published during those years? Did you ever sort of take a look at it and say, you know what, this isn't what I stand for?
PAUL: Not all the time.
BORGER: But you did read them?
PAUL: Not all the time. Well, on occasion, yes.
BORGER: And did you ever object when you read them?
PAUL: Well, you know, we talked about this twice yesterday at CNN. Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I've said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn't write them. I disavow them and that's it.
BORGER: But you made money off of them.
PAUL: I was still practicing medicine. That was probably why I wasn't a very good publisher because I had to make a living.
BORGER: But would you give it back? If you made money off of --
PAUL: To whom?
BORGER: Well, I -- charity. Charity. If you made money off of them --
PAUL: That's nonsense.
BORGER: -- and you disavow it --
PAUL: You know, I didn't write them and I don't endorse those views and I've explained it many times.
BORGER: So you read them but you didn't do anything about it at the time.
PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never -- I would never -- I came -- I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written, and it's been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this, and CNN does every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1112/21/acd.01.html


Here is what paul was referring to when he mentioned "yesterday on CNN" (Check out 6:40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rDCKBF4JM

Also here is a guy who actually transcribed all the newsletters. He also has pdfs available. It is very useful. Why didnt any of you link me to this rather than angry ranting?
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/

More to come...

[Littleshop]

[
Also here is a guy who actually transcribed all the newsletters. He also has pdfs available. It is very useful. Why didnt any of you link me to this rather than angry ranting?
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/

More to come...

His SOURCE was the new republic's scanned images that I originally linked to.  And that source I linked to has no angry ranting as you call it. 

The link I provided is done by me on page three of this thread. 

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

 

[bb113]

Oh my bad. I just clicked your mr destructo link and assumed the TNR link was the same as Flippros. Sorry for ignoring you earlier on that one. I blame flippro for priming me. Also that mr destructo guy is really annoying.

[bb113]

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

I really can't find the newsletter for this one. I have also seen it quoted as:

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."

[bb113]

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

As mentioned above, I cannot find this in any of the newsletters. I would note that he did not deny it. Did not deny /= admitting he knew about it.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.
...

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

...

   – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

I found the news letter this is referring to: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
(pdf here: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html)

There is no mention of fleet footed black teenagers, and that newsletter appears complete with 8/8 pages available, not sure why TNR only has 3. Anyway here is the context for the three offensive lines above:

  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. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.  They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. 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.
 

I would recommend reading that entire newsletter for the full context. It was written in response to the LA riots after rodney king. I had never really looked into the Rodney King story before, and the version in there did not jive with what I thought I knew about it at all, so I doubted it. Here is the full video of the beating (poster says their sister worked for Rodney King's Attorney). It is much more consistent with the narrative of the Ron Paul article than what I had thought happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAc718W8axM&

Bonus: Here is a random "non-racist" line I came across:

What a relief it is to walk, shop, or eat in the small Ethiopian community in Washington: successful, confident black people whose self-image is not defined in anti-whiteness, and who are therefore invisible in the liberal media.

http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-paper-trail-ron-paul-political-report-december-1989/#blkthg

[FlipPro]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

[bb113]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

For anyone too lazy to watch the video,

Ron Paul wanted to vote to end Jim Crow laws. Chris Mathews sighs dismissively when he says anything libertarian sounding, and just keeps saying "what about all the racists in the south". Ron Paul says it was all government mandated racism to begin with and everything got better due to getting government out of enforcing segregation.  He believes the rest of the civil rights act was another step the government took putting us on the road to totalitarianism.

Good find Flippro.

[FlipPro]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

For anyone too lazy to watch the video,

Ron Paul wanted to vote to end Jim Crow laws. Chris Mathews sighs dismissively when he says anything libertarian sounding, and just keeps saying "what about all the racists in the south". Ron Paul says it was all government mandated racism to begin with and everything got better due to getting government out of enforcing segregation.  He believes the rest of the civil rights act was another step the government took putting us on the road to totalitarianism.

Good find Flippro.

Let me try to pin you down right here...

So you really believe that African Americans are worse off because the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Are you prepared to say this?  

And BTW the only reason the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be written in the first place was because of racist southern local state governments embrace of the Jim Crow laws. In his explanation Ron Paul would love you to think that it was the *Big Bad Federal* government that was preserving these laws, when in fact it was the states which were objecting to the changes.

Ever wonder why RP is such a big advocate of *state rights*  .

[MoonShadow]

Ever wonder why RP is such a big advocate of *state rights*  .

You're getting your libertarians confused.  Ron Paul has openly stated, recently, that "States don't really have rights, the people who live there do."

[MoonShadow]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57298.0

I've started another thread related to this one.  Specificly for FlipPro to address a concern that I have with the Civil Rights Act.

[JeffK]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

[MoonShadow]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

[JeffK]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Way to miss the point

[MoonShadow]

Ron Paul is a racist  .

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Way to miss the point

Spell it out for me, then.