Ron Paul: More than 50 documents of racist ideology

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**schadenfreude**

Mannahnin wrote:
biccat wrote:Can we stop feeding BrassScorpion's threads? Nothing good ever comes from them.

I think Ron's a genuinely principled guy with a lot of integrity. I grew up with a lot of Libertarian ideals, and he's the most appealing guy on the Republican side of the aisle in many ways. Stuff like this does matter to some folks.

My thoughts exactly. Left wingers liked the guy back in the 2008 republican debates, but now that it seems like there is a possibility of him winning the fickle anti Romney vote the preemptive strikes begin.

My 2 cents to left wingers worried about Ron Paul: Don't worry, be happy. He could in theory beat Obama in a 2 way race by splitting the anti war vote, but it would never be a 2 way race. Some idiot like Donald Trump would jump in as a 3rd party if Ron Paul won, split the republican vote, and hand a 2nd term to Obama on a silver platter because the 3rd party can't risk Obama winning a 2 way election. Of course other options are just as bad for the GOP. If a Mormon like Romney won some idiot like Donald Trump would jump in as a 3rd party if Ron Paul won, split the republican vote, and hand a 2nd term to Obama on a silver platter because it's better for the country to be run by a secret Kenyan Muslim than an out of the closet Mormon. If Gingrich wins 527s would eat him alive and Obama would get a 2nd term handed to him on a silver platter. If Perry wins he would throw up all over himself during the debates with Obama and hand a 2nd term to Obama on a silver platter. There is a good solid theme between all GOP front runners, they are all set up to lose and election they should be able to easily win.

**halonachos**

Why can't we let Romney win just once?

**biccat**

halonachos wrote:Why can't we let Romney win just once?

Mainly because he's got a balanced left-right approach to governance. That is, he likes the far-left ideas and the far-right ideas, meaning absolutely no one will vote for him.

He's like the anti-Reagan. Or Clinton.

**halonachos**

biccat wrote:
halonachos wrote:Why can't we let Romney win just once?

Mainly because he's got a balanced left-right approach to governance. That is, he likes the far-left ideas and the far-right ideas, meaning absolutely no one will vote for him.

He's like the anti-Reagan. Or Clinton.

But if we let him win once, he won't ask for it ever again. Or maybe it'll turn out like that "If you give a mouse a cookie" book, I can see it now, "If you give a Mitt a presidency"...

**AustonT**

feth all these Clowns. 2036 is coming faster than you think...write me in.
AustonT...because it's better than nobody.

**halonachos**

Halonachos for the do nothing party; I won't do anything to fix the country, but I won't screw it up either.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:Can we stop feeding BrassScorpion's threads? Nothing good ever comes from them.

Irony. Thickness. Knives.

biccat wrote:
Mainly because he's got a balanced left-right approach to governance. That is, he likes the far-left ideas and the far-right ideas, meaning absolutely no one will vote for him.

He's like the anti-Reagan. Or Clinton.

This is a prime example of why we cannot have nice things in American politics.

We find a guy that does not have an explicit political commitment aside from his partisan affiliation, and he suddenly likes both the far right and the far left.

Also, and I know this may be difficult for certain posters to process many people have voted for Romney.

**Monster Rain**

He's doing pretty well in NH, as I recall.

**schadenfreude**

biccat wrote:
halonachos wrote:Why can't we let Romney win just once?

Mainly because he's got a balanced left-right approach to governance. That is, he likes the far-left ideas and the far-right ideas, meaning absolutely no one will vote for him.[youtube]

He's like the anti-Reagan. Or Clinton.

Actually Reagan was a moderate that worked with Democrats, well actual Reagan was. The thing is there are 2 Reagans; actual reagan and mythical reagan. Actual Reagan can only be found in history books, while Mythical Reagan can be found in fox news. People need to read to learn about actual Reagan, but learning is not needed to learn about mythical reagan. Mythical Reagan had a supermajority in the house and senate, balanced the budget, destroyed communism, and is now worshiped in the Republican party like he was a golden calf. The problem is the gop wants mythical Reagan, not anybody who reminds them of how moderate actual Reagan was.

**dogma**

schadenfreude wrote:Actual Reagan can only be found in history books, while Mythical Reagan can be found in fox news.

And everything he said in public. Great speech writers in that Administration, and Reagan could definitely work a crowd.

Probably the best American politician of our age.

schadenfreude wrote:
...and is now worshiped in the Republican party like he was a golden calf.

Mooby?

**Frazzled**

schadenfreude wrote:His stance on the letters is pretty much that he allowed other people to write crap in his name without his supervision because he was too buys at the time running a medical practice. His political failure here is to he should be throwing other people under the bus, and he should have purged the ranks of his followers of racists a long time ago. There are multiple problems for Paul here because he's not going to be very good at purging the ranks of his followers of racists, and he is not going to be very good a leading a political witch hunt of the racists that actually wrote that stuff in his name.

As a libertarian I'll freely admit our ranks are infested with racist creeps that don't really hold libertarian views so much as they want to horde weapons and are paranoid that a left wing government is out to get them. Keeping their GAK out of libertarian media is a full time job and a half.

Horse gak. You allow other people to write something in your name you are endorsing whatevere they write. This attempt at plausible deniability is absolute bs worthy of Barack Obama.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Mentioned this on another thread, but someone once said that during the Napoleonic wars, the British Army had the knack of finding the least qualified person and making him general. Obviously, Sir Arthur W was the exception, but it seems to me that the people who should be locked away in some Alaskan log cabin, are the people who get the keys to 1600 pennsylvania. Are there no good leaders in the UK or USA anymore? Where are the Churchills, the FDRs, the Teddy R's etc etc

Finally, I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan in his prime, and although I disagree with his politics, one thing I'll say for him is he always had the common touch i.e he'd speak to anybody. I draw the line at Reagan though. All these Iron Lady posters everywhere are starting to freak me out!

**AustonT**

"Lions led by Donkeys" is the phrase you are searching for.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Lions led by Donkeys is WW1?? Anyway, IMO WW1 generals were not as bad as they were made out to be, but that's another thread which I may start some day.

**AustonT**

The phrase predates WWI at least as far as the Crimean war and I would wager much before that. It's a recurring theme in British military history.

**BrassScorpion**

For those who like the succinct version of things, someone's been tweeting lines from the decade or more of incredibly racist and incredibly crazy conspiracy oriented Ron Paul newsletters. You can check out some of the weirdest and most obnoxious lines from those newsletters at:

http://twitter.com/RP_Newsletter

Ron Paul Newsletter
@RP_Newsletter
Tweeting actual quotes from the Ron Paul Newsletters. Non-newsletter tweets are signed -RPN

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Video at

http://wegoted.com/blog/default.asp?NID=861

Excerpt:

Ron Paul's Race Relations
Have you noticed how well-formed Ron Paul supporters' defense arguments are?

The usual approach - It's the media's fault.
The novel approach - It's impossible for a libertarian to be racist.
The candidate's line - He didn't write that stuff and he disavowed it.
The distraction/changed subject - These wars are racist.

Of course, Ron Paul has no responsibility for these newsletters at all. Despite the fact that his name was on them and they were marketed to his followers. The deniers can cry foul all they want, but a quick review of Ron (and Rand) Paul's views in the Civil Rights Act, desegregation, and EEO really tells you all you need to know about the Paul family. Paul's claimed unconstitutionality of nearly everything is simply a smokescreen to cover for personal bias against minorities, non-Christians, the poor, and more.

**Monster Rain**

What is the point of this, exactly?

**BrassScorpion**

What is the point of this, exactly?

The point is to have a good idea what you are getting from someone who wants to be taken as a serious presidential candidate.

Instant Republican nostalgia, just add DeLorean
By Jamil Smith
-
Mon Jan 2, 2012 2:49 PM EST

"He had this crazy idea about breeding pine trees."

Tracking how Ron Paul has explained away his racist newsletters requires its own timeline. He's been doing this for a while now, since around the time "Back to the Future" was released. Now that he's doing it again, and two days prior to the Iowa caucus, it seems like a curious time to dis the 1964 Civil Rights Act (again).

About four minutes into his interview yesterday with CNN, Congressman Paul reiterated that he's all for the Jim Crow-killing aspects of the Civil Rights Act. But nearly fifty years later, he is still unhappy with how we got rid of it:

What you don't want to do is undermine the concept of liberty in that process. And what they did in that bill was they destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.

So if you do this, all civil liberties are protected by property rights, where it's your TV stations -- that's a piece of property -- or whether it's the newspaper, whether it's the church building, or whether it's the bedroom. This is something that people don't quite understand, that civil liberties aren't divorced from property.

So if you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms. And that's exactly what has happened.

Paul's criticism may be libertarian in its basis, but it fits right in with how the other Republican presidential candidates sold themselves in the takeover election of 2010, and now again in 2012. They wouldn't do it if the message didn't have appeal. Republican politicians hearken back to before that meddling Obama got involved, back to the good ol' Reagan years. Ron Paul is lamenting how things changed back in the '60s. The overall message to voters is that America was better back then. Hop into their political DeLorean, and they'll take you back there.

But as you'll recall from "Back to the Future," things back in the day were better for some people. As a kid, you know what I remembered most? Mayor Goldie Wilson was "colored" and sweeping a soda jerk's floor in 1955. Just saying.

On Friday's show, TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry excoriated this brand of nostalgic campaigning by Republicans, and made an important distinction:

History and nostalgia are not the same thing. In fact, respecting history actually means being willing to do away with nostalgia...only nostalgia makes you believe that we're worse off now than a century ago. This I know. Despite the continuing inequalities in our country, there was no moment in the American story when it would have been better to be a Black woman than it is right now. The march is unsteady, but the progress is real.

The full segment is after the jump.

Melissa Harris-Perry responds to calls to "take America back" to "the good old days" with a reminder of some of the harsh realities and painful history America has progressed beyond.
Video at http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/02/9893238-instant-republican-nostalgia-just-add-delorean.

**dogma**

There's not much racism in there, just a whole lot of extreme libertarianism that is easy to spin as racism because it directly speaks to the Civil Rights Act.

I don't know if I've said this yet, but there are plenty of ways to attack Ron Paul that are based on positions he has clearly espoused. There's no need to go forcing new ones into existence.

**Doklunggraba**

Is Ron Paul a demo or a Rep?

**BrassScorpion**

Doklunggraba wrote:Is Ron Paul a demo or a Rep?

He is running to be the Republican nominee.

**Mannahnin**

He presently a Republican. He was also a Libertarian for a long time.

**AustonT**

Pretty sure he is still a libertarian, seeking republican nomination

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:I don't know if I've said this yet, but there are plenty of ways to attack Ron Paul that are based on positions he has clearly espoused. There's no need to go forcing new ones into existence.

You have said at least once before and I believe I stated as much earlier in the thread as well.

**schadenfreude**

dogma wrote:
I don't know if I've said this yet, but there are plenty of ways to attack Ron Paul that are based on positions he has clearly espoused. There's no need to go forcing new ones into existence.

My thoughts exactly. The man is an extreme libertarian with a lot of unpopular views. It's a lot less difficult to attack his agenda and label him a cook than it is to attack his character by labeling him a racist. His campaign pretty much difused the news letter with the video about the biracial couple, and the media has lost their very short attention span.

I also don't know why progressives are afraid of him. Yes a 2 way race between paul and obama would be risky, but a 3 way race between paul, obama, and trump will hand the white house to obama, and the best part is obama can shift to the left and still win.

**Mannahnin**

AustonT wrote:Pretty sure he is still a libertarian, seeking republican nomination

He was elected on the Republican ticket, right? Do Libertarians not have the ability to run as Libertarians or Independents in Texas? I was thinking in contrast to Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, who's elected as an Independent, not a Dem.

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:
AustonT wrote:Pretty sure he is still a libertarian, seeking republican nomination

He was elected on the Republican ticket, right? Do Libertarians not have the ability to run as Libertarians or Independents in Texas? I was thinking in contrast to Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, who's elected as an Independent, not a Dem.

Depending on what day it is, Paul decides if he is a Republican or not. However, he always runs as a Republican for his actual seat in Congress.

Paul gives Libertarians a bad name. Hooking all their horses to that crazy horse is bad, bad idea.

**dogma**

Mannahnin wrote:
He was elected on the Republican ticket, right? Do Libertarians not have the ability to run as Libertarians or Independents in Texas? I was thinking in contrast to Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, who's elected as an Independent, not a Dem.

Despite being primarily a Libertarian, Paul does hold a number of standard Republican views regarding things like abortion, and prayer in schools (something a lot of other Libertarians frown on).

Also, I just realized that he wants to do away with jury nullification, which makes me realize he has far too much faith in what the law considers his peers.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:Also, I just realized that he wants to do away with jury nullification, which makes me realize he has far too much faith in what the law considers his peers.

Clarify oh demented platypus. Is this in regards to sentencing or what aspect, and what is he espousing?

**biccat**

dogma wrote:Also, I just realized that he wants to do away with jury nullification, which makes me realize he has far too much faith in what the law considers his peers.

While I'm not sure you can do away with jury nullification, constitutionally; do you think jury nullification is a good thing? It's too much power left unchecked to be functional, imo.

Everyone likes it when the poor destitute drug addict goes free, nobody likes it when the white guys get off for murder of a black guy. Both are exercises of jury nullification, only one is seen as worse than the other. Legislation should be left to the legislature and prosecutorial discretion is held by the executive.