The racism of Ron Paul

Quote from papitosabe : no, are those synonyms? aren't they all the same..

No, they are not the same at all. A writer must agree with everything they right. Editors need not agree with everything that they publish.

Quote from papitosabe : compare what he's about, how he speaks, things we know he's actually written, his actions against oppression, what he's said about Parks and King, and then read the comments from the newsletter...completely different person... I know there are those that don't like RP, I get that, but don't just jump on something negative, just to jump on something negative.. I remember when I heard about Newts marital issues, I could have cared less, even though I can't stand the guy...

This is a reasonable point. Do you have quotes from him regarding Parks and King during the approximate time when those damning newsletters were written?

Even if we accept everything he says, not checking (at least after it was published) a newsletter that goes out under your name and is written in first person language is gross disregard for the truth. It is awful.

You guys believe that no one that knew RP, his wife, his children, his friends, his supporters read those newsletters and picked up the phone and warned him? He is lucky to have such believing followers. I do not believe that in a nano-second.

Quote from Xygonn : Well, if you listen to what Ron Paul has always said publicly, and in debates etc. You'll see he is very anti-discrimination, and anti-racist. Libertarianism doesn't allow for group identities.

I have told you this before. Rand Paul (RP's son) believes Civil Right act should only apply to the government. He thinks say WalMart should be able to say blacks are not welcome in their stores. I do not call that anti-discrimination. Do you have statements from RP that condemns discrimination by individuals?

Quote from Danman114 : I honestly believe that he did not read every sentence of all the newsletters published under his name while he was working full-time as a medical physician.

Every? Were the objectionable parts usually one or two sentences in a long newsletter? When I see blatant strawman arguments like this, I usually suspect that the speaker knows he has a weak position.

Quote from TRNT : Always? Including when those newsletters went out? Got any cites?

He is an intellectually consistent man. What cites would be adequate proof?

Did you watch the youtube in the first post? Very non-racist. He clearly did not write those newsletters. I'll repost it for you.

http://breakingbrown.com/2011/12/...-and-race/

All I'm asking for is a single citation among his many years of being a public figure where he has personally said anything remotely close to what was in those newsletters. There should be something like these newsletters in the rest of his public body of works if they are actually written by his hand or endorsed by him.

Quote from travfar : I equate him not being able to run something as simple as a little newsletter to not being able to run the country. Why don't we just elect the local high school newspaper editor then? At least they've shown that they can do the job that Ron Paul couldn't. If you are going to have your name associated with something, you darn well better know what's going on. If he wasn't going to be able to do that, then he shouldn't have his name on that publication. Since he did, then he should stand up and take full responsibility. By having his name on it, that's where the buck stops. What's he going to say if he's elected? "Yes, that memo calling for war came out of the White House, but you can't expect me to know every little memo that comes out of here do you?" So he's messed up on a variety of levels. One, he didn't manage the newsletter well. Two, he hasn't been stand up and accepted responsiblity for his newsletter. I thought of him as someone who doesn't duck the hard questions. This proved that he's just another politician talking out of the side of his mouth.

I can see your frustration, and I agree that he's messed up on a variety of levels...that's obvious. I won't defend Ron Paul for that, I'm not a blind follower. However, I've seen footage of him accepting responsibility for it since it was published under his name....though he did at the same time restate that he wasn't the one that wrote it (I'll try to find the video). Maybe that's not what you're looking for though.

This guy has done a lot right, I'm not so sure you should be so quick to write him off. I mean, there's not a single person alive today that hasn't messed up on a variety of levels. Just think about it, that's all.

Quote from 124nic8 : You're denying that he wants to reduce government?

Strawman disguised as a question.
Wanting less government does not equal being anti-government, but you're smart enough to already know that.

Quote from TRNT : I have told you this before. Rand Paul (RP's son) believes Civil Right act should only apply to the government. He thinks say WalMart should be able to say blacks are not welcome in their stores. I do not call that anti-discrimination. Do you have statements from RP that condemns discrimination by individuals?

"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 strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."

Ron Paul in a speech to the house in 2004.

That should answer your question. Unless you think Ron Paul considers himself indecent and abhorrent.

Quote from Xygonn : He is an intellectually consistent man. What cites would be adequate proof? Did you watch the youtube in the first post? Very non-racist. He clearly did not write those newsletters. I'll repost it for you. http://breakingbrown.com/2011/12/...-and-race/ All I'm asking for is a single citation among his many years of being a public figure where he has personally said anything remotely close to what was in those newsletters. There should be something like these newsletters in the rest of his public body of works if they are actually written by his hand or endorsed by him.

OK, I watched the video. The RP in that video is the RP that I know and respect.

A few points:

1. The video is from 2008 (not the time of those newsletters).

2. While I love what RP said about federal death penalty I am so disappointed that he did not opine about DP carried by states (especially his own state). If those are handled as RP thinks the federal ones are, would that not make the state death penalties also unconstitutional?

You have a good point that no one has persuaded public statement by RP similar to those in those newsletters. I guess I have to revise my opinion that perhaps he knew about those newsletters. At the very least and still very irrepressible of him to have allowed them.

Quote from Xygonn : That should answer your question. Unless you think Ron Paul considers himself indecent and abhorrent.

It does? She agrees with his son. Right? If so, I do not call his son anti-discrimination by any stretch.

Quote from papitosabe : so you assume that him not reading every article equates to him not being able to manage a country??? that's ludicrous...he made a mistake, has said he was wrong on that part... so do you believe he did or didn't write the articles in question?

I have to agree with papitosabe. The fact that a person is not capable of managing ans obscure newsletter does not mean that he is not capable of managing the most powerful and richest country.

Quote from TRNT : It does? She [sic] agrees with his son. Right? If so, I do not call his son anti-discrimination by any stretch.

I pointed out that he was saying that discrimination is considered abhorrent by decent people. Not sure how else you can interpret that.

Quote : 2. While I love what RP said about federal death penalty I am so disappointed that he did not opine about DP carried by states (especially his own state). If those are handled as RP thinks the federal ones are, would that not make the state death penalties also unconstitutional?

It's like Leftwingers never heard of Federalism before. They dont even know what it is.

Quote from Xygonn : I pointed out that he was saying that discrimination is considered abhorrent by decent people. Not sure how else you can interpret that.

Is this the statement you are referring to:

"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."

Call me difficult, call me a nitpicker but he did not say racism is abhorrent.

Got one (quote) that says that?

But even if he personally finds racism abhorrent he does not think racist should be disallowed to practice their deed in employment and public accommodation. (Does he?) That alone to me is nearly a disqualifier as far as presidency is concerned.

Quote from TRNT : Every? Were the objectionable parts usually one or two sentences in a long newsletter? When I see blatant strawman arguments like this, I usually suspect that the speaker knows he has a weak position.

1 or 2 sentences in a very small portion of the news letters from a very specific time (when he wasn't in Congress, working full time as a medical doctor).

So I think it's entirely reasonable that someone would entrust someone else to put out a newsletter in their name, and I think he did the right thing for accepting responsibility for not monitoring it more closely.