Criticizing Ron Paul

[drinkbleach]

I've been viewing a few other forums and it appears that Ron Paul has a lot of racist tendencies. I don't know if it's because he's stuck in the 50's or if it's because he's a true racist, but I figured that this would be a place to discuss what I've seen.

RON PAUL ON CIVIL RIGHTS



Quote:
The Trouble With Forced Integration



Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial trife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

Thoughts?

[drinkbleach]

This one is on the LA Riots
Here's another Ron Paul comment.

"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites"

"A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said(somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent."

Anectdotal comments are terrible things to provide as proof of something. This was a real gaffe for Ron.

[drinkbleach]

Another Ron comment that seems overflowing with bigotry...

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."

Has he never heard of Richard Reid and his shoe bomb? Timothy McVeigh commited the worse act of domestic terrorism in this country. The Irish have had to deal with white terrorists for decades.

[wwycher]

Where did those last two qoutes come from?

[drinkbleach]

These Ron Paul comments seem just plain racist.


"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

He called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.”

I'd like to support Ron Paul, but all of a sudden I don't know if I can.

[drinkbleach]

And why is this racist?

Are you joking? Ron Paul stated that terrorists can be identified by skin color. You don't think that's off-putting?

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul is not a racist by any definition.

He does hold a clear philosophy of dealing with issues in the appropriate forum (marketplace, local or state government versus federal government). The federal Civil Rights Act was not under the authorized powers of Congress under Article I Section 8 and therefore not a federal issue.

Murder and rape are wrong, and I'm sure Dr. Paul opposes them. However, they are not FEDERAL offenses (disputes between states or with a forieign power) warranting Congressional and federal responses.

[Harald]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[62][7]

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[7]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[7]

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[63] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.[63]

[TheConstitutionLives]

It's this simple. If RP was a racists it would be evident in his over 30 years of writing. Go to Paulonpaper.com and read through his articles he's written and the books he's written. The man is not a racists. There would be a slant or racists trend or bitterness to his library of writings if he were. Read his article called "Government and Racism" he wrote about the Don Imus debacle a few weeks ago. He just doesn't like the system itself which breeds racism and group think.

[Seth M.]

Racism is not real in my opinion. Now if you are curious of someones character, why not just ask?

[Gee]

Forced integration is racist.

The other comments were written by a (disgruntled?) staff member of his a while ago.

The terrorists who currently want to blow us up do have certain ethnic traits in common. One of those traits is skin color. To ignore this fact in our search for terrorists would be to wrecklessly endanger lives.

[Buzz]

Like it or not, everything said in the quote in the original post is completely correct. Ron doesn't put political correctness over truth and realism, and that speech is no exception. That's not something to criticize him for--it's one of his best qualities and one of the best qualities a leader could have.

[angelatc]

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/political-parties-campaigns-elections/38441-digging-ron-paul-president-easiest-way-help-him-4.html alleges that these quotes are from some his newsletters that he won't release.

[Andrew76]

I'm wondering why a person would spend so much time trying to dig up quotes, "proving" Ron Paul is racist. In regards to the civil rights act,... I cannot for the life of me find one thing wrong with what he said there. Our race relations are still shakey here in the U.S., forced integration infringes upon individual liberty/private property, and racial quotas are nothing short of racist.
As to the other "quotes," that haven't already been explained on here and *numerous* other sites as the work of someone else, ie: "black criminals are fleet-footed," "so and so's a victimologist," etc... I doubt, entirely, the legitimacy of the sources where you found these. Again, what could motivate a person to search for such a thing, and equally, what motivates a person to collect such alleged quotes? This is nothing more than slanderous nonsense. I give this thread the big thumbs down. Ron Paul is against collectivism in any form, and is first and foremost a supporter of individual liberty - by definition - he cannot be racist.
Furthermore, it really irks me when people misuse the word "racist" ie: believing one's own race to be superior and other races to be inferior. Usually what people refer to as "racist," is actually prejudice, which is in fact, something altogether different. While it's true to say that all racist people are more than likely prejudiced, it is not also true that all prejudiced people are racist.
For instance, a person might have a distasteful notion that most jewish people are tightwads, but this does not mean he's literally a racist, it just makes him ignorant or guilty of racial stereotyping. You may be white, and might have a grandpa who watches too much t.v. news, and locks his car doors when a black man walks by. Does this mean that grandpa feels the white race is superior to all others?? Absolutely not. He's guilty of prejudging someone based on racial stereotypes. But to conclude that he's therefore a racist, with all that being a "racist" entails, is logically incorrect. By the way, this is in no way meant to justify the supposed "quotes," by R.P, as I said before, I do not beleive they are things he said. I'm just trying to offer a little clarity on the whole racism, prejudice, stereotyping thing.

[drinkbleach]

I didn't spend "so much time" digging these up. I came across these quotes on another forum and brought them up on this forum for discussion.

[kylejack]

I didn't spend "so much time" digging these up. I came across these quotes on another forum and brought them up on this forum for discussion.

Ron Paul didn't write them. A staffer did and it was published while Ron was in Congress voting no on unconstitutional bills.

[Minuteman2008]

Are you joking? Ron Paul stated that terrorists can be identified by skin color. You don't think that's off-putting?

What is nuts is that we're in a "war on terror" rather than a war on Islamofascism. This play of words shows just how far away from honest discussion we've gotten. You can't discuss anything without tiptoeing around it, and we have a whole generation of people indoctrinated to point out any infractions against PC doublespeak.

[drinkbleach]

What is nuts is that we're in a "war on terror" rather than a war on Islamofascism. This play of words shows just how far away from honest discussion we've gotten. You can't discuss anything without tiptoeing around it, and we have a whole generation of people indoctrinated to point out any infractions against PC doublespeak.

So if we focus all our efforts on identifing little brown people do you think we'll eventually get another Timothy McVeigh? Instead of all this effort getting wasted tracking down high school students engaged in file sharing perhaps we could focus on legitimate terrorism fighting strategies?

[kylejack]

So if we focus all our efforts on identifing little brown people do you think we'll eventually get another Timothy McVeigh? Instead of all this effort getting wasted tracking down high school students engaged in file sharing perhaps we could focus on legitimate terrorism fighting strategies?

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home from Iraq and not interfere in their politics. He wants to defend our borders. He doesn't believe in wars on terms, like a War on Terror.

[4Horsemen]

These same quotes have been brought before this forum many times before. To the "Political Correctness Police", please do a search before bringing up worthless subjects from the past. This has been addressed many times and there's nothing to go on. Do you have anything else to try to smear RP with? :rolleyes:

[Minuteman2008]

So if we focus all our efforts on identifing little brown people do you think we'll eventually get another Timothy McVeigh? Instead of all this effort getting wasted tracking down high school students engaged in file sharing perhaps we could focus on legitimate terrorism fighting strategies?

Obviously nobody is letting the McVeighs of the world off the hook, but when every action is scrutinized in order to prevent racial profiling then I don't think we're being honest about things. Anything that even hints that maybe cultural relativism isn't a good policy will be attacked from the left. This is the exact same kind of crazy thinking that has allowed our "leaders" to decide we can install a democracy in Iraq. If one were to point out cultural differences that would prevent a modern democracy from working in that part of the world, they were attacked not only by the left but by the neocon right. I think Reagan was honest when he pulled out of Beirut, but our current leaders cling to the false hope that modern democracy can work anywhere in the world, while every day we learn it's just not true.

[drinkbleach]

These same quotes have been brought before this forum many times before. To the "Political Correctness Police", please do a search before bringing up worthless subjects from the past. This has been addressed many times and there's nothing to go on. Do you have anything else to try to smear RP with? :rolleyes:

Had I known about the comments beforehand I wouldn't have started a new thread.

Trying to bring up what appears to be a negative about Ron Paul gets escalated into a smear job? Straight from the neocon playbook. Shouldn't you be at a McCain rally?

[NewEnd]

the staffer who wrote those comments was fired.

However, Ron Paul accepts responsibility for them, because they were in his newsletter.

Those comments were published, while he was working as an obstetrician.

[ronpaulitician]

Had I known about the comments beforehand I wouldn't have started a new thread.

Trying to bring up what appears to be a negative about Ron Paul gets escalated into a smear job? Straight from the neocon playbook. Shouldn't you be at a McCain rally?
Although I happen to believe there's nothing wrong with healthy debating, and although I often don't do so myself, it does help to search a forum to see if previous threads have been created on an issue.

Searching for the keyword "racist" brings up "one way to deal with charges of racism", "Is Ron Paul really a racist?", "Ron Paul and racism", and "USA Today politics blog - racist suggestion".

It really doesn't hurt to continue to discuss this issue though. It prepares us for what is to come, and allows all of us to become familiar with the issue, which in turn will allow us to explain the situation to those that question Paul's morals.

[4Horsemen]

Had I known about the comments beforehand I wouldn't have started a new thread.

Trying to bring up what appears to be a negative about Ron Paul gets escalated into a smear job? Straight from the neocon playbook. Shouldn't you be at a McCain rally?

Shouldn't you be drinking a glass of bleach? You must be a student of the late Professor Leo Strauss, since your so astute about the Neocon "playbook". Machiavelli, would be proud.

[drinkbleach]

Shouldn't you be drinking a glass of bleach? You must be a student of the late Professor Leo Strauss, since your so astute about the Neocon "playbook". Machiavelli, would be proud.

Care to discuss the issue at hand? No? Focusing on misdirection instead I see. Please let me assist: thread title=Criticizing Ron Paul.

Either offer criticism, refute criticism or stay quiet and let this thread die. I myself am happy to let this thread go away since it's redundant. If you agree then don't reply.

[JoshLowry]

Although I happen to believe there's nothing wrong with healthy debating, and although I often don't do so myself, it does help to search a forum to see if previous threads have been created on an issue.

Searching for the keyword "racist" brings up "one way to deal with charges of racism", "Is Ron Paul really a racist?", "Ron Paul and racism", and "USA Today politics blog - racist suggestion".

It really doesn't hurt to continue to discuss this issue though. It prepares us for what is to come, and allows all of us to become familiar with the issue, which in turn will allow us to explain the situation to those that question Paul's morals.

*clap clap clap* ;)

Lots of people have never used a forum before, so we'll have to show some of them the ropes.

[NewEnd]

its called vetting. Right now, this is probably the biggest stumbling block for Paul, but dont be fooled into thinking it will not come up when paul begins to pick up steam (which I have no doubt he will)

[lucky]

Care to discuss the issue at hand? No? Focusing on misdirection instead I see. Please let me assist: thread title=Criticizing Ron Paul.

Either offer criticism, refute criticism or stay quiet and let this thread die. I myself am happy to let this thread go away since it's redundant. If you agree then don't reply.


Welcome to the forums bleach. We can discuss most anything here and actually do and you now know we have discussed this before.

I am curious though why you just post certain parts of the papers or why just a few quotes out of a large article? This is taken that you are quoting out of context and meaning to cause harm.

We already are expecting the attacks to come at any time and I even suggested that they will come this week before the debates to discredit Ron Paul and put him on the defensive and weaken him to the point that his message will not be heard. These next debates are very important to all the candidates and after the lackluster effort by all the candidates except RonPaul it has the appearance that you are trolling for a certain candidate that you actually support.

May I ask what candidate you would vote for if you could vote today and also what candidates you identify with?

[NewEnd]

enough with the paranoia. This question has to be asked.
This happens in any primary, any and all dirty laundry must be aired, and vetted.

I don't think he is an agent in our midsts, he is asking a completely relevant question.

[angelatc]

Hey, at least the moderators didn't just delete it. Try asking a question like that in the "unofficial" Fred Thompson boards. You can literally watch it vanish.

[drinkbleach]

...SNIP...

May I ask what candidate you would vote for if you could vote today and also what candidates you identify with?

My first choice for president would be Ron Paul. Mostly because he speaks from the heart (sounds corny). I also consider his lack of party support as proof that he's not part of the groupthink that dominates the Republican party. Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? Hell no, but I'm willing to vote for somebody who seems like a real person instead of some party crony.

I've stated in the introductions thread that I'm a liberal, but I'm tired of the government acting in an irresponsible manner. I think the government can shrink in a lot of areas too. Mostly I'm at odds with Paul's beliefs when it comes to economic issues. I'm willing to give "Fair Tax" a chance. On foriegn policies Ron Paul seems to be the only guy who knows what the hell he's talking about, and not just because he's against the war. He's pointed out that the methodology was wrong at that people are going to war when they don't even know the history of the area.

My second choice for prez is a toss-up between Edwards and Obama.

[drinkbleach]

Hey, at least the moderators didn't just delete it. Try asking a question like that in the "unofficial" Fred Thompson boards. You can literally watch it vanish.

I got banned from Conservapedia for copy/pasting the Wiki entry of "orgasm" into their definitions:eek:

[lucky]

These Ron Paul comments seem just plain racist.



I'd like to support Ron Paul, but all of a sudden I don't know if I can.


This is why.

Also I am expecting this exact attack to start this week and then voila it does.

Just old enough to have seen all this before.

[lucky]

Apologize. I am cynical and all but would like to welcome you to the forums. Please check out the other ideas of Ron Paul and feel free to ask anything. There is always something to not like about someone even if that one thing is a red herring.

The economics thing had me for many years but after reading and studying it for years I finally have just a handle on it.

[KingTheoden]

I would be interested in the the sources and the full context of all these purported quotes to begin with. Pulling out random quotes and casting them into isolation is completely unfair because if we are to assume these are legitimate quotes, there is no telling what the set up question or previous comment was.

Second, I think it would do us all good to not automatically throw around the term 'racist' at every remark anyone ever makes that includes, as part of it, an element of race. Saying that some people are taught to hate others is not 'racist', it is a qualitative judgement that one can support or dispute with evidence. Similarly, it is a quantitative statement to comment on the demographics of a situation, place, or occurance (e.g. a crime).

Regardless, given that Dr. Paul has never been accused of 'racism' up to this point, I seriously question the motives of those posting this information on the Internet and those who are trying to create a major controversy out of it.

[vertesc]

The quotes I'm seeing don't seem racist at all! They do describe complex and sensitive issues, however. It's easy to misread. I'll list the first page of forum posts:

"The Trouble With Forced Integration" - I don't see what is racist here. Ron says that forced integration has deepened, rather than helped, the racial divisions in America. The establishment of racial quotas and institutionalized divisions between people based on their skin, has promoted racism rather than healed it. Look for the key condensed sentences: "Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." and "Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act."


"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites" - again, this isn't racism... this is just a very ugly fact. Over 75% of people incarcerated for drug-related offences are African-American. More than 2/3rds of all inmates across America are racial minorities. One in eight black males in their twenties is in jail on any given day. I do think that the phrasing of "they are trained to hate whites" is unfortunate - from the rest of his writings, it seems that he believes that MANY african-americans are trained as children to hate whites. Living in a very racially divided city (Cincinnati), I can tell you - it's true! Awful, but true. The anecdotal evidence seems fine to me too... it's a reverse-discrimination event, just like any other. Cincy had race riots in 2001. Does recounting the stories of racial hatred against whites make me racist? Or just honest about the dreadful state of race relations, from both sides of the divide?


"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America." Again, I don't see any racism here. most white americans are not going to believe that white americans are responsible for what blacks have done to cities across america. Again, statistically an enormous percentage of incarcerated criminals are african-american, and historically, a lot of the criminal culture in the black community is a result of the oppression they have felt at the hands of white america... this is a major subject in the fight against racial divisions. Ron is stating a part of the issue, that white america has a hard time accepting blame for the race problem, or that there even IS a statistically demonstrated racial culture factor to criminal behavior. as he puts it, "This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."


None of this seems racist to me. The first quote is a very standard argument against government racial intervention - one that I support, as it happens. In the next, Paul is not saying that people are criminals BECAUSE they are black. He is saying that white americans have a hard time accepting responsibility for the high occurrence of criminal behavior among black people.

PS - drinkbleach, note my emphasis in the sentence about identifying these "terrorists" by the color of their skin:
"Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." ie, people have a hard time AVOIDING the racist mindset. This again, is an established part of mainstream concerns about racism in America.

[vertesc]

And now I'm reading the rest of the comments in this thread, and I'm amazed... All these people, backing a candidate who so strongly supports the constitution, and they're damming bleach for bringing up a topic they don't like?

Get a grip, guys. Honest discussion of issues - especially the distasteful ones - is key to a functioning rational process. I'm on Bleach's side here: he's right to bring up the question, and he did it in a way that promotes debate. That would make him a very good democrat (small d), and a very poor neocon.

[lucky]

And now I'm reading the rest of the comments in this thread, and I'm amazed... All these people, backing a candidate who so strongly supports the constitution, and they're damming bleach for bringing up a topic they don't like?

Get a grip, guys. Honest discussion of issues - especially the distasteful ones - is key to a functioning rational process. I'm on Bleach's side here: he's right to bring up the question, and he did it in a way that promotes debate. That would make him a very good democrat (small d), and a very poor neocon.

There is no damning him on this. There is a thread on this already and we let him know. On the other matter and since I said there was a thread and has been discussed we also know where and what the articles and other things said. He seemed to be just pulling out the quotes a little at a time and this is what trolls do and we questioned it is all.

We welcomed him and any discussion on this matter.

[mconder]

Which would you rather have?

A. 1 of the 3 "top-tier" candidates who you know will lie to you and is an enemy to freedom?

or

B. 1 man who's honesty is beyond question, who has been a consistant campion of liberty, but might be a racist based on 1 article he didn't even write?

[Minuteman2008]

I don't think any conservatives would even find any of those comments posted to be racist. The problem is that many or even most of Paul's supporters are coming from the left, so any statements that aren't PC are taboo to them. Expect more of this. To liberals, political correctness will always be more important than honesty, even if the effects of maintaining PC thought are disastrous.

[drinkbleach]

Which would you rather have?

A. 1 of the 3 "top-tier" candidates who you know will lie to you and is an enemy to freedom?

or

B. 1 man who's honesty is beyond question, who has been a consistant campion of liberty, but might be a racist based on 1 article he didn't even write?

I hesitated for a moment, but I've already stated I'd rather vote for somebody whom I disagree with but speaks honestly. That's Paul.

[IrrigatedPancake]

These Ron Paul comments seem just plain racist.



I'd like to support Ron Paul, but all of a sudden I don't know if I can.


Please provide the sources of the quotes your posting.

I know for a fact that quote is from a Libertarian news letter that RP wrote, or writes, in. However, during his campaigns he often had guest writers fill in for him and on one occasion a guest writer, in the "Ron Paul" column of the newsletter, wrote those comments. It was a controversial point for a little while, but was cleared up until recently when people started spreading the comments around the internet.

The first statement about the civil rights act of 1964 doesn't sound racist at all. That is the view that a lot of people had about quotas, and it is a big factor for why we no longer have them.

[kylejack]

I don't think any conservatives would even find any of those comments posted to be racist. The problem is that many or even most of Paul's supporters are coming from the left, so any statements that aren't PC are taboo to them. Expect more of this. To liberals, political correctness will always be more important than honesty, even if the effects of maintaining PC thought are disastrous.

I am a libertarian and I found the statements offensive. Much of America will too. Thank goodness they aren't his words!

[drinkbleach]

Please provide the sources of the quotes your posting.

I know for a fact that quote is from a Libertarian news letter that RP wrote, or writes, in. However, during his campaigns he often had guest writers fill in for him and on one occasion a guest writer, in the "Ron Paul" column of the newsletter, wrote those comments. It was a controversial point for a little while, but was cleared up until recently when people started spreading the comments around the internet.

The first statement about the civil rights act of 1964 doesn't sound racist at all. That is the view that a lot of people had about quotas, and it is a big factor for why we no longer have them.

I stated that I came across these comments while on another forum. I brought the quotes to THIS forum to be discussed amongst Paul supporters.:rolleyes:

[4Horsemen]

My first choice for president would be Ron Paul. Mostly because he speaks from the heart (sounds corny). I also consider his lack of party support as proof that he's not part of the groupthink that dominates the Republican party. Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? Hell no, but I'm willing to vote for somebody who seems like a real person instead of some party crony.

I've stated in the introductions thread that I'm a liberal, but I'm tired of the government acting in an irresponsible manner. I think the government can shrink in a lot of areas too. Mostly I'm at odds with Paul's beliefs when it comes to economic issues. I'm willing to give "Fair Tax" a chance. On foriegn policies Ron Paul seems to be the only guy who knows what the hell he's talking about, and not just because he's against the war. He's pointed out that the methodology was wrong at that people are going to war when they don't even know the history of the area.

My second choice for prez is a toss-up between Edwards and Obama.

You say you’re a liberal, and why do you label yourself? Are you a commodity? I think human beings are too complex to be labeled. I used to consider myself a “Republican Conservative” but soon realized that I wasn’t born this way. I was socially engineered to think this way to serve the establishment. I now call myself a human being who happens to be an American by birth best defined by the Constitution. I have woken up to the “Hegelian Dialectical Game” that makes us either Democrats or Republicans which weakens the people by design. The other 2nd tier parties exist, but will never gain any influence under the current system. I think liberalism is a good thing, but only on the local level within our communities where we have full accounting at all times. The federal government can never take care of the people unless they want to live under tyranny. Governments are controlled by the elites, behind the scenes, often playing the role of the philanthropist with their “Foundations”, but that’s nothing but a ruse. What's the best answer between the liberals vs. Conservatives? Its already been answered if you read between the lines. The center will serve the public interest, and the establishment knows this all to well.

Liberal poles / Conservative Poles
god-men / god-fearing
materialism / spiritualism
love / hate
evil by nature / good by nature
unionism / hierarchical authoritarianism
primacy of proletariat / primacy of bourgeoisie
communism / dialectical capitalism
democracy / oligarchism
randomness / order
Maitreyanism / Christianity
multiculturalism / chauvinism
nihilism / orthodoxy
extremist conservationism / laissez faire environmentalism
sexual liberalism / sexual regimentation
radical feminism / patriarchicalism
pro-choice / pro-life
state paternalists / parental sovereigntists
economic totalitarianism / moral totalitarianism
lawlessness / studious regulatory conformity
permissiveness and apologism / draconian law enforcement
drugs are good / war on drugs
state nihilism / state religion
gun-grabbers / discretionary incarceration

[Brandybuck]

The other comments were written by a (disgruntled?) staff member of his a while ago.
Having seen some of the hatred filled threads that Eric Dondero has created elsewhere, it wouldn't surprise me the least if he was the one that wrote them.