I'd generally agree that his convictions are more important than what was said in newsletters 20/25 years ago.
However, what I worry about most with Ron Paul (other than his anti-progressive taxation stances and somewhat radical pro-life policy) is not that he's a racist, but rather that he would stand by and allow racism to occur just to stand by his idealistic but not-the-least-bit-pragmatic stance on individual liberties. My great grandfather died when a doctor performing an appendectomy dropped a scalpel in the middle of the operation. This happened because all of the decent and modern hospitals in the area refused Jewish patients. So he was stuck with a drunken surgeon who killed him instead of performing the operation.
Ron Paul would tell you that the real outrage is the idea that big brother would "force" the other hospitals to accept a Jewish patient.
I don't think Ron Paul is racist. I just think his policies allow for racism to occur, like it occurred to my ancestors and the ancestor's of many other posters here. And in this day and age, there is no excuse for holding to such archaic and impractical ideologies.
Just like in his newsletters -- Ron Paul didn't write anything racist, he just sat back and allowed his name to be emblazoned on virulently racist and homophobic sentiments. That's a wonderful analogy for what a Ron Paul presidency would look like.
The major domestic issues of the day- massive federal debt, international trade debt, and private debt, call for a revolutionary change in the tax structure of this country as well as its regularity apparatuses and money policy. Our nation's drug policy and foreign policy are in need of massive transformation in basic design, something NO politician is willing to do (except Paul). Basic violations of individual rights and dare I say it- human rights, continue to be committed despite the election of one charismatic reformer. What is needed are radical changes by
real reformers who change the system from within and who emphasize a constitutionally restricted republic beholding individual liberties.
I can't speak for your personal anecdote. But in the great scheme of things, bad things happen in every system. A social, political, and economic system based on freedom and a rule of law will protect everyone equally, regardless of sex, creed, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and might I add, income bracket. You have your personal story that will always drive your personal convictions. But we cannot let government be used and abused by interest groups. A subsidy to one industry leads to another. Government is not an enterprise. As for your great grandfather, I don't see why he had to accept the least common denominator among doctors. Before extensive regulation of the health care industry, Catholic charities were everywhere. There were also Jewish hospitals who specialized in serving the Jewish community. Ron Paul routinely talks about the role of Catholic hospitals in private sector charity:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 84 , Apr 1, 2008
When he opened up his own practice, he often lowered rates and refused Medicare and Medicaid, instead working pro bono for the less fortunate.
What is Ron Paul’s Stance on Health care? | The State Column
As for race, it is the one unfortunate fact of life that exists
despite the single provision of the CRA that mandates private business trade. As a rule, we cannot diminish the principle of free trade by forcing trade on people. As I discussed earlier, it would be unfortunate if Jewish business owners were forced to trade with everyone in the public, including non-aggressive skinheads bearing swastikas. In some parts of the deep south, it is unfortunate fact of life that de-facto segregation exists despite laws on the books barring any such behavior. African-American families continue to bury their loved ones in cemeteries within their own communities. In bars on the other side of town, a person of color would be faced with intimidation or at least suspicion and uncomfortable scrutiny if they sat down for a drink. You can walk into one part of one small town and most of the customers seem to always be of one particular race. Usually, we're talking real rural America. I believe as a nation, we have moved past all of that. As a society, the moral transformations occur with or without government legislation. We need laws to protect the civil liberties of individuals by mandating that no such systems of Jim Crow exist at ANY governmental level. But in terms of imposing trade on others possibly against their will is a departure from liberty I cannot take.
Oh, and by the way, guess who's the only republican to condemns racial profiling?
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/162...te-to-condemn-racial-profiling-at-cnn-debate/
