Just got an email from a friend about RP

[ionlyknowy]

I just got an email from one of my friends who I had been emailing to back and forth about Ron Paul.

Here are his words:

Yeah, it's from the DailyKos, but it has full text, in context excerpts from Ron Paul's political newsletters. I don't think that his being anti-war is enough to justify this kind of thing. I'm not sure if there is any good explanation for this kind of thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

I first heard about it on the net, and I pretty much dismissed it because politicians get accused of things all the time, and then I read it fully.


So I read it, and came to this part....

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."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."


What is the explanation for this and how do I respond to this friend? I also had another guy approach me about this in class the other day.
This is pretty important.

[j0ew00ds]

This is long, but explains the point of the newsletter when it isn't taken out of context.

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/saint_paul_of_m.html

[WilliamC]

I just got an email from one of my friends who I had been emailing to back and forth about Ron Paul.

Here are his words:

Yeah, it's from the DailyKos, but it has full text, in context excerpts from Ron Paul's political newsletters. I don't think that his being anti-war is enough to justify this kind of thing. I'm not sure if there is any good explanation for this kind of thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

I first heard about it on the net, and I pretty much dismissed it because politicians get accused of things all the time, and then I read it fully.


So I read it, and came to this part....

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."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."


What is the explanation for this and how do I respond to this friend? I also had another guy approach me about this in class the other day.
This is pretty important.

"fleet-footed " is racist?

Your friend is being duped.

[ionlyknowy]

"fleet-footed " is racist?

Your friend is being duped.

Read the entire article on the dailykos... there are more "quotes"

[hillertexas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTU4IKqMZdg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zvA8lLZCX4A
--and--
Ron Paul Would Free the Most Black Men since Lincoln
http://www.thecitizensperspective.com/content/ron-paul-would-free-most-black-men-lincoln

Posted January 10th, 2008 by chrismatthews

In light of the recent events of TNR contributor James Kirchick's article concerning Ron Paul, and his raising of the "racism" spectre, it is important to closely examine what exactly it is that Congressman Paul is suggesting, and perhaps to consider Mr. Kirchick's motivation for the article in question.
First, lets consider a point that was not disclosed in Mr. Kirchick's piece. James Kirchick has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president.(** as a contributor of National Review pointed out to me, Mr Kirchick didn't explicitly state an endorsement. I contend that his article soliciting an endorsement for Giuliani amounts to an endorsement res ipsa loquitur. ) On December 5th of this year, Mr Kirchick wrote a piece entitled Cabin Fever where he states:

"The gay and lesbian organization Log Cabin Republicans has decided to sit out the
Republican primary by not endorsing a candidate. Why aren’t they backing
Rudy Giuliani, the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history?"

Further, and in the same style of solicitation.
Giuliani still says he supports domestic partnerships that ensure the same legal rights for gay couples. Add his regular participation in New York City’s gay pride parades, his appointments of openly gay people to city offices, and his having lived with a gay couple after his wife kicked him out of the house -- plus a dearth of gay-supportive Republican rivals -- and you have a no-brainer of a Log Cabin endorsement.

In the immediate aftermath of the Iowa caucus, the blogosphere was churning out the results and what they indicated. One of the most popular results was that Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani by a margin of two to one in Iowa. Here's an example from the Huffington Post. Ron Paul Beats Arch-Nemesis Giuliani 2-To-1 In Iowa

Ex-mayor Giuliani retreated by claiming he hadn't campaigned there, he was waiting for Florida, he hadn't spent money. But in fact, he made more campaign appearances than Ron Paul, and only three less than John McCain. Money spent in the fourth quarter has yet to be disclosed.

This is the environment in which Mr. Kirchick released his dubious article. On the day of the New Hampshire Primary. The reader can determine on merit if they believe the article to be objective journalism.

For me, the true test of character regarding Paul, and indeed all of the candidates this year, is what effect we can expect from the realization of their proposed platforms, and how it relates to the issue of race, as it's being discussed by Mr. Kirchick.

Here, Paul vindicates himself admirably. No candidate excepting Ron Paul has promised to tackle the ineffectual war on drugs. In fact, Paul has promised to pardon non-violent drug offenders, as well as restore the voting rights of those pardoned, and work to end federally mandated minimum sentencing. What would the results of this action be?

The ACLU released a study in 2006 regarding the drug war and the prison population.

America has approximately 262,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges, more than 70 percent of which are black or Latino. That means over 183,000 black and Latino citizens are serving time for non-violent drug offenses.

What makes this a racial issue? Here's a bit more from the ACLU.

" Recent data indicates that African Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug
users, yet they comprise 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59%
of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug
offense."

One can argue with the cause, is it racial, is it socio-economic? But what you can not debate is the reality. Black Americans are incarcerated disproportionately to White Americans for drug crimes. No candidate other than Paul is even discussing this issue.

Lincoln's Proclamation freed the slaves not under control of the Union. A Paul presidency is offering to free a quarter of a million Americans incarcerated for a victimless crime, 70% of them being black or Latino.

So which will it be? Substance or innuendo? Freedom for 183,000 blacks and Latinos that have been herded into the state prison system? Or a hat tip to the politically correct among us while we ignore a generation of what amounts to political prisoners? Should we fight the existence of racially destructive legislation, or should we delve into decades old newsletters who's author can not be attributed, written by a journalist that supports another candidate?

[Basilieus]

NAACP came out and said Ron paul is not a racist, the guy has been his friend for 20 years and stated he wasn't a racist.

end of story.

[pacelli]

Paul's interview response about newsletters on CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI&feature=related


Audio of Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder defending Paul : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2svQNYS6kQ

[ionlyknowy]

"fleet-footed " is racist?

Your friend is being duped.

The reason why I quoted that particular part, is because it seems to refute the argument that I have been giving people, that Ron did not write these things...

[hillertexas]

Proof that Ron Paul is racist :)
http://dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

[AlexMerced]

http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/89-ron-paul-addresses-racism-charges.html

show him that, these are things that we have proof ron paul said, show him that, show him the real ron paul

[ronpaulyourmom]

Paul is not the author of the newsletters, and the NAACP president in Texas who has known Paul for 20 years has come to Paul's defense saying that he is not at all racist.

There's a myriad of articles attacking Paul, and an equal amount defending him, you just need to look hard enough. There's also a brief statement from the official campaign, and if all else fails check out the Racism section on the campaign website under Issues and see if that sounds like a racist man to you.

[hillertexas]

This is great guys...we should refer people to this thread if it comes up again...that way we don't have to waste our energy time and time again.

[NinjaPirate]

NAACP came out and said Ron paul is not a racist, the guy has been his friend for 20 years and stated he wasn't a racist.

end of story.

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

[newmedia4ron]

Send him these links:

Video:Ron Paul on racism. Doesn't sound insincere too me. Decide 4urself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njne6PA-h6s

Ron Paul on Rosa Parks
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/12/03/Commentary/Paul-Right.To.Vote.Against.Rosa.Parks.Medal-3128419.shtml

However, Paul has not just voted against spending taxpayer money for the medal - he has proposed a workable alternative. Instead of shelling out $30,000 of taxpayers' money, Paul proposed that each member of Congress ought to pay $100 out of his or her own pocket.


Here is Ron Paul's own words on racism:http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Here is comedy:http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

[Edu]

If you listen to Paul enough you can tell he's the nicest guy you ever met and means no harm to anyone.
With all the debates, interviews and youtube videos out there it's amazing people can't see what's really going on.

[LEK]

Also read/listen to Ron Paul's side of the story. At least Ron Paul has publicaly talked about this and given an explanation that should put it to bed. His record is anything but racist.

And if you want to be fair and balanced research the other candidates and things that have been said about them. Republicans and Democrats have many ethical if not criminal allegations against them and yet a newsletter from 15 years ago (apparently the only thing they can dig up) is enough to throw this man out?

Politics is a dirty game.

LEK

[Rhys]

The reason why I quoted that particular part, is because it seems to refute the argument that I have been giving people, that Ron did not write these things...

He didn't.

The truth is it sucks and this may kill the campaign cause I just heard NPR talking to a Chicago Tribune writer who said "even if people agree with Ron Paul 95%, him being a racist could be a deal breaker".

The real truth though is, he didn't write it and I bet the publisher of the Tribune doesn't know what that writer wrote. Dr. Paul licensed his name, but had really no control over what was going in the newsletter. Since he's known, his newsletters are excellent and devoid of racism. The media is just using this as a smear cause it sells.

[ionlyknowy]

I know about all of these articles and interviews. My only concern is the newsletters. People think that Ron actually wrote these newsletters and he is lying about not writing them and that these newsletters are how he either used to feel, or harbors these feelings secretly never letting them surface in public.

The dailykos article says,
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Some will take this to mean that he already admitted to writing these newsletters in the Houston article in 1996.

Some claim that even if he didnt write the newsletters then these are the types of people who he hangs around. Guilty by association.

Some claim that this is indicative of how he would be president. With not much oversight. If the newsletters were being written under his name, and he did not know about the nature of these writings, then he might do the same thing with other duties....

Just passing along the args that I have encountered. Thanks for helping out.

[xxxander]

more bad stuff just came out... i don't think he can ever manage to clear his name... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HbZ2OGKgxI

[ionlyknowy]

Also read/listen to Ron Paul's side of the story. At least Ron Paul has publicaly talked about this and given an explanation that should put it to bed. His record is anything but racist.

And if you want to be fair and balanced research the other candidates and things that have been said about them. Republicans and Democrats have many ethical if not criminal allegations against them and yet a newsletter from 15 years ago (apparently the only thing they can dig up) is enough to throw this man out?

Politics is a dirty game.

LEK

Yeah, but it almost seems to me that America would rather have a criminal for president than a "potential" racist.

I know he isnt racist, but that is what people are thinking. Most people dont research articles.. they assume they are true.

[Rhys]

Also, the DailyKos has been against Dr. P since the start.

If you look, the only people really making a big deal out of this is people who were saying he's a racist before or attacking him before.

The problem is, this is sticking unlike their last attacks.

[Derek Johnson]

Ask him to donate to Ron on MLK day...

[Mystile]

I'm trying to figure out who I hate more, warmongering neocons such as Fox, or elitist leftards such as Dailykos.

[newmedia4ron]

explanation


What’s going on here?

To a large extent, it’s a civil war among libertarians. Left-wing libertarians, who dominate movement’s Beltway institutions and have gone native inside very much like Beltway conservatives, have always been apprehensive about Paul. They have used this controversy as an excuse to go after Paul and the "paleolibertarians"—libertarians, centered around Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute, who are concerned about cultural prerequisites for liberty, and who have supported Paul for years. Along with his adherence to Austrian economics and an America First foreign policy, simply by saying he believes in national sovereignty—and in enforcing the law against illegal immigration—Paul has clearly placed himself in the paleolibertarian camp.

[ionlyknowy]

I posted this earlier but I got nothing...

I know about all of these articles and interviews. My only concern is the newsletters. People think that Ron actually wrote these newsletters and he is lying about not writing them and that these newsletters are how he either used to feel, or harbors these feelings secretly never letting them surface in public.

The dailykos article says,
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Some will take this to mean that he already admitted to writing these newsletters in the Houston article in 1996.

Some claim that even if he didnt write the newsletters then these are the types of people who he hangs around. Guilty by association.

Some claim that this is indicative of how he would be president. With not much oversight. If the newsletters were being written under his name, and he did not know about the nature of these writings, then he might do the same thing with other duties....

Just passing along the args that I have encountered. Thanks for helping out.

[ronpaulyourmom]

I posted this earlier but I got nothing...

I know about all of these articles and interviews. My only concern is the newsletters. People think that Ron actually wrote these newsletters and he is lying about not writing them and that these newsletters are how he either used to feel, or harbors these feelings secretly never letting them surface in public.

The dailykos article says,
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."


This was on the bum advice of his staffers, who told him to take responsibility for the words during his re-election campaign. His offical press release on the matter addresses this and states regreat for the decision. He denies authorship.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

[Rhys]

We can't save people from themselves. If they think he wrote it, all we can do is get our message out. They'll get theirs out. Hope for the best. This aint the movies, so a bloody vendetta is out!

[ionlyknowy]

This was on the bum advice of his staffers, who told him to take responsibility for the words during his re-election campaign. His offical press release on the matter addresses this and states regreat for the decision. He denies authorship.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

Where does it say this? I dont see it on the website anywhere?

[newmedia4ron]

I posted this earlier but I got nothing...

I know about all of these articles and interviews. My only concern is the newsletters. People think that Ron actually wrote these newsletters and he is lying about not writing them and that these newsletters are how he either used to feel, or harbors these feelings secretly never letting them surface in public.

The dailykos article says,
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Some will take this to mean that he already admitted to writing these newsletters in the Houston article in 1996.

Some claim that even if he didnt write the newsletters then these are the types of people who he hangs around. Guilty by association.

Some claim that this is indicative of how he would be president. With not much oversight. If the newsletters were being written under his name, and he did not know about the nature of these writings, then he might do the same thing with other duties....

Just passing along the args that I have encountered. Thanks for helping out.

if its a friend you can bug him. Just keep showing him all these videos and articles.

[ionlyknowy]

We can't save people from themselves. If they think he wrote it, all we can do is get our message out. They'll get theirs out. Hope for the best. This aint the movies, so a bloody vendetta is out!

Actually I think that you can have a good campaign against this "racism" thing.... You just need to refute every and all things that suggest he wrote them...and give a good reason how someone on his staff was able to get away with it....

The rest of the articles fully explain that RP isnt a racist in his actions.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The bottom line: Ron did not write that shit and he has condemned it.

End of story.

[KnownasTIm]

Reply to all racism concerns -

(talk in hushed tones. like you have a secret)
Did you know that
Ron Paul's policies would seriously cut into the profits of the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex , the prison industrial complex and the federal reserve? Think about it. Why are people dragging up newsletters that were written 15 years ago that Ron Paul has already disavowed? They have nothing else on him and they are hoping that crying racist will fool people just like you. Have you seen the movie America Freedom to Fascism? Watch it and then tell me who is fooling whom.

Other conversation topics -
Do you know what blowback is?
Did you know we have x amount of bases is x amount of countries?
Did you know the Federal Reserve is Not federal?
Ect.

The possibilities are endless!

The racism thing is an excellent opportunity to open minds to the truth.

[Energy]

"Ron Paul Offers to Chip In $100 for Gold Medal to Rosa Parks"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so

"Ron Paul Honors MUHAMMAD ALI on his 65th Birthday"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070117-38&bill=hr110-58#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002F mgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm110mx002Fmcrmx 002Fmh20070117-38.xmlElementm12m0m0m

[acptulsa]

Section one is an introduction in which he admits bias
Section two is an attempt to confer guilt by association.
Section three is an attempt to put a tin hat on his head by making some points that can be painted as crazy to the average idiot because these things are ignored by the MSM. He doesn't disprove any of Paul's statements or make the slightest effort to give Paul's point of view balanced explanation.
Section four simply shows how very liberal Giuliani is.

If the reader is simply armed with this, he or she can see through this propaganda with ease.

[bcmiller]

ah but it would be so much better if all of this logical wrangling were to take place on the issues and instead of these needless bullshit detours

We have serious problems and Dr. Paul should have had a plan to counter act or dare I say "preempt" these accusations. Especially when he realized that he would not be a flash in the pan. He really let down everyone who wanted to hold him up as an unassailable messenger who tells the hard facts even when it's not popular.

I still am pushing for Dr. Paul... I don't think he is a racist... I will give money on the 21st....

If anything this is just evidence that he is human. He lent out his name to a group for money and they took advantage of him.

He only had to do this because he didn't take lobbyist cash. He didn't take his congressional pension. He has shown that in the balance, when he is trusted with power, he is incorruptible and he will do what he promises when he becomes president.

Who else can you claim that of?

You should tell your friend the truth. Ron Paul screwed this up really well, back when those letters were written for him and now again in handling the response to this scandal. He isn't doing everything you would expect of a Romney, McCain or Huckabee in a similar situation. Your friend should vote in his own self interest.

No IRS, No FED, No needless undeclared wars, No war on drugs, No more American Empire paid for by a Chinese credit card. No more bullshit.

If all that good could come from voting for somebody who had a bad letter published in his name that he has since disavowed, that he has contradicted in every vote or speech he has ever said in 30 years, Why would you need convincing?