Ron Paul: Black lawmakers oppose war because they want the money for food stamps

a reply to: Southern Guardian

" Black Caucus and others did not — they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here "


" FOR PEOPLE HERE " . Meaning ALL American People who are currently receiving Food Stamps . That would Include All Races and Ethnic Groups . In what way was that Statement by Ron Paul somehow Interpreted as being Racist ?

Why would you question, when the answer has already been provided for you?

The older generations, share a closer affinity to the more primitive cultures, which included non-applicable survival mechanisms for a modern homogenous society.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes he could have just simply said that some don't want war cause they want to feed people here.

He didn't, hence why it can be seen they way.

What I find strange is that Ron Paul always held a strong anti-war position himself. He was always taking about brining troops home to save money and lower the national debt. His remarks in this interview seem to imply the exact opposite thing.

EDIT: Ok I just listened to the actual interview and it seems to me he's not saying there's anything wrong with anti-war groups, he's saying that their motivations and policies are not effective. Basically he's saying that their blind support of sanctions does not help reduce global conflict. And their reason for wanting less war so that they can give more government handouts is not a good motivation for less war. Perhaps there was a slightly racist connotation to his remarks by associating those beliefs with the Black Caucus, but it's definitely being blown out of proportion.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Interesting fact about all this. Ron Paul made these remarks to Lew Rockwell radio earlier this month:
www.rawstory.com...

For those of you unfamiliar, Lew Rockwell, he's a self described libertarian, an author and editor, who started the Lew Rockwell letters and Lew Rockwell.com as well as the radio show. The racially charged Ron Paul letters were in part produced by Lew Rockwell and co (I suspect most of them):
reason.com...

Yup, RP made racist remarks again.
And he is getting a pass again.
Double standards apply just because he is popular around here.

Maybe he isn't being racist just HONEST. Can any sane individual really argue his point. This new thing about not being able to butthurt whites by telling the truth about blacks needs to stop. Even the blacks are tired of us whities taking up for them and trying to find common interests.

Seeing how Ron Paul is pretty much isolationist and anti-war himself, One could almost overlook this comment. Then you remember he's is very libertarian, and thus, opposes food stamps and government programs.

Personally, I'd rather see tax dollars going to food stamps and things that support Americans, especially Americans in need, than on wars or bombs, and I say that as a veteran. Mainly because I have realized that the U.S. government has an extremely poor track record in choosing justified and sensible wars and military actions, and many have downright hurt the American people, and benefited our enemies. Maybe instead of rebuilding other countries, we should try to rebuild our own first.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Not defending Ron Paul because I think he has a few screws loose in general, but overall the black caucus has a history of bias when it comes to anything potentially racially charged that benefits blacks.

Considering the percentage of blacks on food stamps, there is a correlation.

That being said, I disagree with his statement.

Finally he stops fussing about the white lawmakers for a second, where was the outrage in that ? He is a good doctor.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Im sure he agrees with the army vet point since he is one, "isolationist" was a term John Mcain used to describe Paul years ago and morons still use it today and sound just as dumb as he did and still does, that's how ya can tell if someone isn't very politically knowledgeable, they repeat media catchphrases and adjectives. With ISIS on the rise maybe we should be isolationists.

Ben Carson just said basically the same thing. is he racist too ?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Take a good hard look thinkers around the world and ask yourself about the timing of this thread........Hmm. The progressive PTB are very afraid of this man for good reason.




Personally I think we will see planned smear campaigns that are paid for.

a reply to: SubTruth

True and the more popular his son gets the more this stuff will surface.

a reply to: Foderalover

Black people can't be racist...wait NM that meme was so 2014.

Honestly though, I don't think any one race is any more racist/evil than the other. I do believe 2014 had an agenda when it comes to race baiting and the MSM though.

Black people for the most part saw "progress" with protests regarding Mike Brown and #blacklivesmatter. The Al Sharpton's of the world saw this as the perfect time to spew more filth and ignite hatred in the hearts of many blacks who have had no personal experience with racism.

White people for the most part saw black people protesting, rioting, and burning buildings over nothing. The most ignorant thing you can do is form an opinion before obtaining all the facts. What happened in Ferguson was a perfect example of that.

Isn't this a conflicting statement with his own anti-war perspective?

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Take a good hard look thinkers around the world and ask yourself about the timing of this thread........Hmm. The progressive PTB are very afraid of this man for good reason.




Personally I think we will see planned smear campaigns that are paid for.

Damn straight, the statists are beginning to recognize the very real competition that real competition and freedom pose to the bureaucratization of human life.

Bring it on collectivists, you have already lost the argument, please reveal your true nature to those who haven't the background to see you for what you are.

a reply to: SubTruth

Exactly. I mean he's running for president again you know, 79 years old. He ran three times for president and lost each time, hasn't even been able to win a single state by popular vote. Not even his own district.

The powers to be are afraid of him indeed.

...seriously....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This is not really inaccurate. He may have included whites or just said all those that oppose the "military industrial complex" because war funding takes away from social programs. Blacks have a larger % of these type socialists in their leadership who will flat out reject any sort of spending that is not "socially" related. There was a few years ago a whole flock for these anti war "because it bleeds of money that could be spent for social program" folks on ATS. Myself I had an ear full of it at collage.....er liberal university.

Now at this point I am not agreeing or disagreeing just stating facts. Black social liberals have been asking for years why folks bitch about social programs but then turn and approve the war funding's. And they are not alone in this but are very front line advocates for social spending, entitlement programs ect.

Edit.....I hadn't even read this thread before posting.

I'm still trying to identify the "That's racist!" part.

I would rather see the money we spend killing people in the Middle East used to help people in the USA. Does that make me racist?

If someone says I'd rather see money spent on food stamps than war, does that make them racist?

If I say that someone else would rather spend money on food stamps than war, does that make me racist?

And how is any of that more racist than having a Congressional Caucus devoted entirely to a particular race?

Paul proceeded to criticize Black Caucus members as ineffective advocates against war, arguing that too many of them voted for sanctions against U.S. adversaries, which Paul said “never get the results that they thought there were going to get.”

I think we're getting something out of context here. This is the second part of the quote as it appears in Salon and that we aren't seeing.

Now, not being a huge RP fan because I think he gets a little loony when it comes to National Defense, I haven't got the faintest clue if he's racist or not. However, in the first part of the quote we see he's irritated at "something" without knowing for sure what that is. He also lists two anti-war groups by name - Libertarian Republicans and the Congressional Black Caucus - and talks about why the CBC lobbies against war. So in other words, he is saying their anti-war sentiment has less to do with principle and more to do with social program spending.

Then he goes on in the next part to explain why he criticizing the CBC. He found their means of being anti-war ineffective.

The Salon piece does offer a link to the whole interview which may shed some more light on what he's really trying to say, but it seems to me he's expressing his irritation with the idea of having to work with the CBC in order to block wars. And he found their means of doing so to be ineffective. I'm not sure how exactly referring to them as the CBC is racist because that's how the refer to themselves, and I'm not sure why pointing out that they are primarily concerned with social program spending which is why they oppose war is racist because that's the impression I get of most liberal groups who oppose war. It isn't that they oppose war per se, but they'd prefer to have a welfare state.