• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Of course he doesn't. It is part and parcel of the extreme right wing to both deny racism as a living ideology in America as well as deny they harbor such beliefs.

I'm sorry, isn't it the left wing that says minorities cannot succeed unless Government helps them with... well **** everything?
 
Of course he doesn't. It is part and parcel of the extreme right wing to both deny racism as a living ideology in America as well as deny they harbor such beliefs.
Are you saying that Ron Paul is part of the extreme right wing?
 
Are you saying that Ron Paul is part of the extreme right wing?


I think he is saying that anyone who is not liberal progressive is 'extreme right wing'...


j-mac
 
Actually, I think the fact the offensive content is only within a specific five-year period, when he was least involved with the newsletter, and only includes these scraps buried in the middle of the newsletter is a positive. One should hardly expect pure perfection of anyone at any time, let alone all the time.

So you support politicans not taking responsibility for what is done in their name?
 
I'm sorry, isn't it the left wing that says minorities cannot succeed unless Government helps them with... well **** everything?

No, that is just a retarded right wing straw man.
 
Define "extreme right wing".... Or as I suspect are you just calling all those that oppose your ideological beliefs, racist?

j-mac

the far right conservative fringe that is anti-federal government, anti-labor union, anti-minority, and would so weaken government that the corporations would fill the power vacuum, greatly increase their power and sway over the nation, and impose a new American style corporate fascism over the land.
 
No, that is just a retarded right wing straw man.

Retarded? Why do people let you get away with bald faced lies? Voter ID Laws? Nope, that would "hurt minorities". Affirmative Action, becausee blacks can't make it without help. Quota's in schools, cause blacks won't make it without. You might wish it weren't so, but reality says I'm right. You may not like the bluntness of it, but it's true.
 
[...] Besides, Paul probably didn't think of the papers as racist...

From the OP's link:
The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’

I just love it when someone doesn't do the easy homework :mrgreen:

The moral of this story has nothing to do with Paul's knowledge of what was in the reports, but that he intentionally published something that he probably didn't believe in order to make money off of people who did believe it.

Let me restate that: People will tell you what you want to hear if they think they can make money (or other type of personal gain) from you.

I therefore advise everyone to think for themselves.
 
Retarded? Why do people let you get away with bald faced lies? Voter ID Laws? Nope, that would "hurt minorities". Affirmative Action, becausee blacks can't make it without help. Quota's in schools, cause blacks won't make it without. You might wish it weren't so, but reality says I'm right. You may not like the bluntness of it, but it's true.

So you do not know the difference between help and hurt?

Affirmative action is an attempt to make right previous wrongs. It does not say that blacks could not make it without help.

Quotas is school do not mean that blacks could not make it without quotas.

This might be difficult for you to understand, but liberals know full well minorities can and will make it without help. Voter ID laws are being opposed because they would hurt minorities by a far larger portion than whites. Affirmative action and quotas are an attempt to ensure equal access because we know that not every one has equal opportunity from society. Noe of it is saying that minorities cannot make it on their own. That is just your straw man since you cannot actually argue against what liberals actually believe. When you have to go out there and "interpret" what others beleive so you can actually handle arguing against it, the problem is with you.
 
Retarded? Why do people let you get away with bald faced lies?

First you'll have to establish it's a lie. We won't hold our breaths.

Voter ID Laws? Nope, that would "hurt minorities".

Actually the argument is that they disenfranchise those who aren't readily able to get IDs like the elderly. Minorities are just more severely affected by them. However Voter ID has absolutely nothing to do with success.

Affirmative Action, becausee blacks can't make it without help.

Affirmative Action has nothing to do with blacks. It actually is a policy making it so an employer can't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

Quota's in schools, cause blacks won't make it without.

Can you show us a school that has a federally/state mandated quota? How about this - show us a single school that has a numeral quota or otherwise? I dare you to try and find one. Just one?

You might wish it weren't so, but reality says I'm right. You may not like the bluntness of it, but it's true.

Please get your facts straight. Why is it that the far right always seems to have a problem with "the blacks". You never complain about women who benefit from "AA" policies or the thousands of Chinese who benefit from the supposed "AA" quotas. It's always black people. There seems to be a pattern. It's not as if poor white kids in trailer parks don't benefit from AA too. College campuses across the US are flourishing with the children of white people who couldn't afford to go to college. So why is it only blacks you seem to have a problem with? ;)
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....



It hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

Article is here.

Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul is racist? :roll:
 
As Jim Steinmen wrote and Meat Loaf sang........ "ain't no doubt about it".

I disagree. He's surrounded by a few racists but I don't think he is one himself. I doubt he thought that a little newsletter nobody read in 1992 would come back to haunt him. If he had had campaign handlers back then who scrutinize pretty much every article a person has written, even they would have a hard time catching this one as "racist". What I'm opposed to is the nonsense that Ron Paul was just a little angel who didn't know anything about this. The guy seems to be an ideological micromanager who makes sure he remains consistent. No way he didn't read a letter going out with his name at the top even if he thought it wasn't racist.
 
Actually, I think the fact the offensive content is only within a specific five-year period, when he was least involved with the newsletter, and only includes these scraps buried in the middle of the newsletter is a positive. One should hardly expect pure perfection of anyone at any time, let alone all the time.
With all due respect, I think the amount of rationalization you have done in this thread is simply amazing. Almost impressive, actually.
 
I disagree. He's surrounded by a few racists but I don't think he is one himself. I doubt he thought that a little newsletter nobody read in 1992 would come back to haunt him. If he had had campaign handlers back then who scrutinize pretty much every article a person has written, even they would have a hard time catching this one as "racist". What I'm opposed to is the nonsense that Ron Paul was just a little angel who didn't know anything about this. The guy seems to be an ideological micromanager who makes sure he remains consistent. No way he didn't read a letter going out with his name at the top even if he thought it wasn't racist.

One does not surround themselves with racists by accident after they have clearly shown their cards and beliefs.
 
Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? .

Didn't this happen to Romney in the last debate? :D

----

The writer name is James P Powell.

Headline of the article is misleading as they're conflicting reports.

Paul claimed what her face in the article was lying.

It was negligible & irresponsible of him to let this happen under his name.

That is about as much anybody is going to get from this story. Anything else is conjecture that is coming from the usual suspects.
 
One does not surround themselves with racists by accident after they have clearly shown their cards and beliefs.

Hopefully you have the same standard for Obama and Wright?
 
Hopefully you have the same standard for Obama and Wright?

Obama threw Wright under the bus and got rid of him decrying his statements and beliefs. When did Paul do that with his baggage?
 
Obama threw Wright under the bus and got rid of him decrying his statements and beliefs. When did Paul do that with his baggage?

Does a person stop being a racist for denouncing one person they seemed to have ideologically agreed with earlier? ;) Be honest. You really don't want to get into an argument of logic with me.
 
Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul is racist? :roll:

Who knows? But there are really only 2(3 really) options here.

1) Paul is ****ty at running things.

2) Paul is a racist.

2a) Paul is willing to use race to get political donations and support.

None of those are things I want from some one in our government.
 
Who knows? But there are really only 2(3 really) options here.

1) Paul is ****ty at running things.

2) Paul is a racist.

2a) Paul is willing to use race to get political donations and support.

None of those are things I want from some one in our government.

Dammit! I agree

What the voters perceive to be true is important, not if something is actually true.
 
Throwing the newsletters under the bus is hardly the same as throwing whomever wrote them under the bus.

Furthermore, if they went out as unsigned editorial comment under his newsletter banner, then for all intent and purposes he 'owns' them. Too bad he took a walk on the fringe side in order to make money, but I can't feel any real sympathy for those who do that.
 
Last edited:
Throwing the newsletters under the bus is hardly the same as throwing whomever wrote them under the bus.
Does anyone even know who wrote them?



Furthermore, if they went out as unsigned editorial comment under his newsletter banner, then for all intent and purposes he 'owns' them.
He definitely deserves some criticism, but we knew that a long time ago.



Too bad he took a walk on the fringe side in order to make money,
an assumption at this point
 
Last edited:
Does a person stop being a racist for denouncing one person they seemed to have ideologically agreed with earlier? ;) Be honest. You really don't want to get into an argument of logic with me.

Oh I agree with you that it is not an all purpose cure or even an inoculation against charges that could be levied in the future. It is a step that needs to be taken IF they want to be considered as a serious candidate for President of the USA. The fact that it was not and will not tells us a great deal about what Paul is really doing and it has damn little to do with getting the GOP nomination.
 
Back
Top Bottom