Ron Paul: Racist? Liar? Or Both? Please discuss.

reply to post by captainplanet


I've read the entire article, not just quotes. The quotes of Ron Paul that I used were from the full article. If you haven't read the full article, then you should: From the Ron Paul Political Report, 1992: LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM.

My point about mentioning the Aryan Brotherhood is that they are one of the most violent gangs in Los Angeles, CA. Yet for some reason in response to the LA riots, Ron Paul targets only Black gang members. There are plenty, plenty, plenty, of White kids raised on the streets as well, and many of them engage in violent crime and join gangs of some sort. Yet one doesn't hear the same line of rhetoric addressing them that Paul issues for 13 year old Black males.

reply to post by Areal51


I won't defend the article, but I'll keep it in perspective. It was in response to what was probably the worst race riot in this country, ever. Racism is not exclusively a trait of white people. In these riots, massive amounts of angry, racist, mostly black Americans destroyed our cities and, according to the article, 52 people died. People were pissed. There were scenes on the news of people being ripped out of their cars and beaten, simply for being white. Police response was hesitant due to the trial that erupted the riots and the whole thing had everyone upset. There weren’t a whole lot of skinheads running around, and if there were, the news wasn’t filming them looting and beating people.

Thanks for providing the link, but if it’s available to read, what reason would there be for Ron Paul to re-associate himself with it by ‘officially’ re-releasing it? It’s already out there and he said he didn’t write it but took responsibility for it’s release. I think he’s done all he should in regards to this, what more would you like him to do?

Originally posted by captainplanet
reply to post by Areal51

 

Thanks for providing the link, but if it’s available to read, what reason would there be for Ron Paul to re-associate himself with it by ‘officially’ re-releasing it? It’s already out there and he said he didn’t write it but took responsibility for it’s release. I think he’s done all he should in regards to this, what more would you like him to do?

Personally, I think that copies of that original newsletter and copies of other issues of his newsletter should be released to the media so that a history of Ron Paul's views in his unofficial capacity can be reviewed. Where I'm suspicious with regards to this article is who the author was, who is the ghost writer? Did Ron Paul allow white nationalists, racists, neo-Nazi's to publish in his newsletter? Were such individuals allowed to publish under the Ron Paul byline? If so, then, why and for what purpose? Did Ron Paul himself ever pen such content in his newsletter himself? Is Ron Paul responsible or irresponsible? Those are valid questions that, I think, need answering. In addition to being able to vet the scope and purpose of his newsletter, it would be possible to get acquainted with Paul's views on other issues besides race. I think that his official public record speaks for itself, but there is the nag of his stature in unofficial capacity that has me wondering what I'm really dealing with. For every other politician that is in the race for the White House, their entire backgrounds are being opened to scrutiny, histories of individuals that are more complete because their political careers and personal deeds are being examined. Ron Paul has the good fortune of being an underdog that is gaining support on a grass roots level, and is simultaneously being blacklisted by the media, which makes it very convenient for his campaign to sidestep many of the hurdles that others in the presidential race and limelight have to encounter head-on.

The thing is this, if this article didn't exist, then folks wouldn't wonder. If Ron Paul didn't have anything to hide or be ashamed of, then there wouldn't be a need for him to release what are historical documents of a historical figure. He's running for the presidency of the United States. He should undergo the most intense scrutiny regarding perhaps the most major issue of our country.

Racism has not gone anywhere. There's great denial that it even exists in our country. Even in the article in question, Ron Paul never questioned the root cause of the LA riots of 1992. The root cause of the riots was not the Rodney King verdict, it was the widespread and decades old prevalence of police brutality in LA County. Something that the LA government and authorities never successfully addressed, if it had ever been seriously addressed at all. Police brutality against Blacks living in Los Angeles at that time and previous to that time was the norm. Yet, this is what Ron Paul had to say:

The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

Source

The central issue of this quote is that it is attributed as fact that the rioters "were looking for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot." Well, just how did Ron Paul arrive at that "fact". For him the looters are the rioters are the problem, not the Rodney King verdict, and as far as the entire article is concerned, police brutality is never mentioned. The entire article only deals with symptoms of racism in our society and not the root causes. He does talk a bit about institutionalized racism, but he doesn't address the root causes of it. He does go into detail about the Rodney King incident and subsequent verdict, but he does not address the possibility of police brutality being the central factor. He doesn't address police brutality at all.

(The quoted passage demonizes rioters by stating as FACT what really is OPINION. He takes away a measure of their cause by denying their reason and calling them liars, refers readers to his opinion of the real motivation of the rioters and calls it fact. That's an example of the use of weasel words. It is a common tactic and tool used in the dissemination of propaganda. Which, of course, the article heavily engages in since it cites studies and statistics that have never existed.)


Anyway, I'll leave you with the following article that can help you to further understand where I'm coming from; the other issues that Ron Paul's article brings to the surface without trying. In my view, the issue for Ron Paul is not only is he a racist or a supporter of racists, I also question his fitness to lead the unbelievably complex issue of the United States of America. This country is not arithmetic, it's not black and white or 1+1=2, as Ron Paul's article would have one believe. This country is advanced mathematics. The existence of this article and the refusal of the Ron Paul to release his newsletters reduces my confidence in him. What is important to understand, captainplanet, is that Ron Paul has NOT given an explanation. He has only offered limited and vague comments. Thanks for listening. Here is the article: Race Problems Go Unsolved When They Go Unadmitted

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Areal51]

reply to post by Areal51


Re-releasing material that already exists can and would be viewed as reaffirming it. If someone really wants to find them, if they looked hard enough in Texas, they could get them. Maybe you should be writing to Ron Paul’s office.

The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

You site that as evidence, but it’s not racist, it’s a fact assessed through logic. What does looting private businesses and beating random people have to do with Rodney King? The people being talked about in that article were rioters, not protesters. The excuses of racism against black people for rioting was what provoked a racial discussion about black rioters. The riots provoked many discussions at the time that focused on black Americans, because black Americans were demanding attention, quite violently they demanded it. Referring to black people specifically is not automatically racist when it’s a current event topic. I think the media wont touch it because it’s a situation everyone would like to move past, not just Ron Paul.

reply to post by captainplanet


That particular quote is not racist, I agree with you. In fact, I didn't make the assessment or a statement that it was. However, that quote is not an argument assessed through logic. The same fallacy occurs twice. The fallacies are that because Ron Paul doesn't believe the reason given by the rioters for their actions, that does not mean Ron Paul's opinion is the true reason why, nor does it mean that his opinion is a fact. The logical course would have been to take the reason given by the rioters and determine if there was any truth to that reason. And that's what I addressed with reference to that specific quote. Do you now see and understand what I'm saying? Paul preferred to portray the rioters as violent and without cause, rather than making an attempt to understand the reasons given by the rioters for their actions. That's the evidence of denial that I'm referring to. Police brutality for many people, especially those targeted by police brutality, is a good enough reason to riot. In the minds of the rioters the Rodney King verdict only reaffirmed the notion that LA law enforcement officials would continue to not be held liable for their actions with regards to police brutality, regardless of evidence to the contrary. In Ron Paul's mind the rioters were just angry and violent people just looking for a reason to express anger and violence. My contention is that Ron Paul created a black and white scenario rather than attempting to understand, address, and solve the complex issue of police brutality. If he had done that then it's more likely that his article would have appeared similar in content to the Common Dreams article I referred you to.

The other point is that, there was more than one issue of Ron Paul Political Report published. It was published from 1985 through 1992. The request has been that Ron Paul would release all issues of the newsletter so that the media and public can vet the authenticity of his claims that he did not, one, write the article in question, two, regularly feature articles bearing the same or similar content, three, rarely or regularly feature writers who were permitted to write such commentary and be published under Ron Paul's authorship, and/or their own names. I think it is a reasonable and important request.

Facts: Ron Paul nine years after publication to address the racist content of the article and the authorship of the article. The article is written in first person. The article contains propaganda tactics, such as stating opinions as fact and using research studies and statistics that have never existed. Using those studies and statistics the article argues that Blacks are terrorists and are only violent and angry people sitting around waiting for a reason to express violence and anger; that because of this, policy designed specifically to target Blacks should be instituted. (The later item is contrary to the message of getting rid of institutionalized racism, don't you think?)

To further the propagandistic message Ron Paul says, "Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it." Really, could that be possible? Ron Paul is from Texas. He's 72 years old. He's a politician who supposedly has always had the social issues of all Americans front and center in his mind. Yet in his article he goes on at length about the hatred that American Blacks have for American Whites. Somehow during his 72 years of being an American he has missed the lynchings of Black people by racists in the south, the KKK, the civil rights movement, the widely publicized events of Birmingham, AL during the 50s and 60s. Ron Paul is from Texas, yet he missed the Jim Crow laws?! He accepts campaign donations from racists, yet he can't fathom the idea that racists would teach their children to hate? Somehow in Ron Paul's mind Whites could never be responsible for racism, that racism is the fault of Black people who are the descendants of slaves who were brought to the United States against their will.

It seems that for you Ron Paul doesn't have to go the distance to PROVE that he didn't write or condone the article, it's enough that he's trying to disregard it. That's not enough for me, and there seem to be others who are also not satisfied with Paul's actions to this issue. To me, it's one of the simplest things to rectify. I've already listed the ways to do that in previous posts.

Finally, although we could, I don't want to get into a discussion about the differences between rioters and protesters. For example, we could get into a discussion about the similarities and differences of civil rights protests in Birmingham, AL during the 50s and 60s and the WTO protests of Seattle, WA that have occurred in recent years. But that's altogether a different subject.

reply to post by Areal51


The quote you state to be fallacy is fact. Not because Ron Paul said it, or because someone else said it, or because of a statistic, but because logic makes it true. What would you check to see if the rioter's reasons were true? They said they were destroying private property and attacking people because of police brutality. Is police brutality a valid issue? Yes. Should we ignore the crimes committed by the rioters because Rodney King got beat up by the police? No. They are separate issues, the article addressed the issue of the rioters.

I see what your saying and the rioters needed to be portrayed as criminals, not freedom fighters. They can think whatever they want is justification, but it is not. There is a right way to go about things and a wrong way, they went the wrong way. A good lawman doesn't bow down to excuses when violent crimes are committed. The best way to handle it would be to address police brutality as a separate issue from the rioters, and that’s what the author of the article did. The rioters were in fact just violent, disgruntled people, whether the thought they were in the right or not.

The articles were released when they were released. If he re-released them the media and Ron Paul hounds would take it as reaffirming it. They all do in fact exist and if a good reporter wanted to dig them up, he could. He is not going to re-release them, they already exist and he would much rather be asked about his current opinions.

You need to stop repeating flawed information. The article was about rioters, not all black people, you don’t loot and attack innocent people in response to police brutality. 52 people died, they were violent. Your only truly valid point is wanting to know who authored the articles, I suggest you contact his office. If you can’t understand the difference between rioters(they loot and act violent) and protesters(they peacefully protest to draw attention to a situation), then I really think this is just an attempt to get people all puffy about nothing. Your portraying assailants and thieves as victims.

Ron Paul still has my vote. I believe in what he says. To me he is right. What he said, doesn't make him racsist. You are ignorant.

Originally posted by captainplanet
reply to post by Areal51

 

The quote you state to be fallacy is fact. Not because Ron Paul said it, or because someone else said it, or because of a statistic, but because logic makes it true. What would you check to see if the rioter's reasons were true? They said they were destroying private property and attacking people because of police brutality. Is police brutality a valid issue? Yes. Should we ignore the crimes committed by the rioters because Rodney King got beat up by the police? No. They are separate issues, the article addressed the issue of the rioters.

Using the Ron Paul quote that we are discussing, if you can state it logically, I'd like to read it. Please do so, if you can. But I can tell you, and thus save you some time, it cannot be done. The two invalid statements it contains makes it an illogical argument, therefore logic does not make it true. I really didn't want to get into an argument at this level, where I have to explain why the statement is false, but if we are to understand each other then I have to. But first, I will answer your questions.

To check if the rioters reason were true, I would simply survey a sample of the rioters and ask, "After the Rodney King verdict, what was your reason for rioting?" Perhaps I would have hired and sent pollsters out to ask that simple question. I would also ask the rioters a question referring to what I thought the real reason behind the riots were. For example, the survey would look something like this:

Screener Question: Did you participate in the riots after the Rodney King verdict?
1.) Yes
2.) No
3.) Not sure.

If "Yes" is answered to the screener question, please continue the survey.
If "No" or "Not sure" is answered to screener question, TERMINATE survey.

Question: After the Rodney King verdict, what was your reason for rioting?

A.) You rioted because you were frustrated over the acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when arresting Rodney G. King.

B.) You rioted because you were looking for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot.

C.) You rioted because of A and B.

D.) None of the above.

Going about finding the truth of the rioters stated reason in this way would provide me more insight to INFER whether or not it was true that the rioters rioted for the reason that they gave, or for the reason that I suspected. And I would have the survey results to back up my claims, or to prevent me from making false claims.

(Personally, I would structure the survey to address the complexity of the situation of the riot. It wouldn't be as polarized as the example I gave above. However, I used Ron Paul's comments as the source for the questions, not my own understanding of the L.A. riots of 1992.)

You see, it is possible to say that the rioters rioted. It's possible to say that they killed people. It's possible to say that they started fires. It's possible to say that they robbed people and burglarized retail establishments. All the evidence needed to support those claims would be provided by media reports and police reports. It is not possible to state that the reason given by the rioters is a lie without furnishing proof. It is not possible for Ron Paul to state that the reason he gives is fact, and therefore true, without furnishing proof. I trust that you can see this now.

Now for the breakdown of the two fallacies contained in the following Ron Paul quote:

The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

Fallacy one:

Ron Paul implies that the reason given by the rioters to riot after the Rodney G. King verdict is a lie. Therefore, the rioters were lying.

Fallacy two:

Ron Paul implies that the reason given by the rioters to riot after the Rodney G. King verdict is a lie. Ron Paul states that it is a fact that the rioters were looking for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot. Therefore, what Ron Paul states is factual and true.

Both arguments are invalid. Only if Ron Paul furnished supportive evidence or proof to conclude the arguments, or to use as the premise of the arguments, could the logic of the arguments become sound. Ron Paul's argument rises out of the obvious fact that he wants the audience to believe two things. One, that the rioters were lying about their reason for rioting. Two, that Ron Paul knows for a fact that the rioters were lying and that he knows what the true reason behind the riots were. He uses his position of authority as the implied authority on the matter, but he does not, in fact, reveal the origin of the authority that informs his "factual" assertion. Persons in authority use these tactics all the time to persuade individuals and groups to subscribe to the views offered by that authority. Politicians and lawyers are adept at these tactics. Small wonder that politicians oftentimes are also lawyers. Small wonder that these tactics are used in the dissemination of propaganda.

To address a comment that you made, you said, "The rioters were in fact just violent, disgruntled people, whether the thought they were in the right or not." That is your opinion delivered with the force of a factual statement, especially with its inclusion of the word "fact". However, it is not a factual statement. If you further assert that it is a factual statement, what authoritative source, other than the opinions of other persons or your own opinion, would bear the statement out to be true? If you cannot answer this question, then your statement is only a strong opinion. I, however, understand that you believe what it is that you say, and that that is a fact about you.

Hopefully this post doesn't come off as being confrontational, I don't mean it to be.

reply to post by jca2005


Everyone has an opinion. Also, if you have read anything that I have said and paid close attention, you would know that I have not referred to Ron Paul as being a racist. However, I do question whether he is one or not.

Ron Paul isn't racist. This is a non-issue.

If you really want to see a racist running for POTUS - read THIS thread. Frankly, I think the MSM is ignoring the fact that this man and his 'church' are a racist crew of anti-Americans (.. check it out - their true homeland is Africa).

reply to post by FlyersFan


It's fine that you do not think that Ron Paul isn't a racist. If you know for certain that he isn't, then please inform me of how you've arrived at that understanding. I'm not sure whether Ron Paul is or is not a racist, it's a question for me.

As for the rest of your post, you and I have already had that discussion. My response to you in another Ron Paul thread, on the very same issue, is located here.

Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're saying. I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, I plan on voting for Obama if Paul doesn't get the nod or run as an independent.

But, to understand some of the remarks that Paul was quoted as saying, you have to understand the racial politics that were occuring at the time. Riots had just swept Los Angeles.

3 years after this was written Los Angeles police were preparing for riots just in case the jury announced a "Guilty" verdict regarding the O.J. Simpson trial.

Are the police wrong for assuming there may be a riots in predominately black neighborhoods? Probably so ... but, that's just how things were.

Subline says it best with some lyrics:
"but, if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King
it's about *bleep* up situations and these *bleep* up beliefs."

I think back then there was more of a tendency by EVERYONE to label things as black and white and not look deeping into what the real issue was. Hell, there were television sitcoms that were based on racial divide. It was a commonly accepted divide. I don't think it was that white people hated blacks - or black people hated whites. Each just knew there were major cultural differences.

Times have changed. People change. That became apparent in Iowa last night.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by tyranny22]

Hey Area51..great post, alot of reading though..But the thing i wanted you and other to see is, can RON PAUL really be trusted or truthful??..if you guys can ,here's this great site of Zionism and other stuff..

prothink.org


Also listen to this PODCAST one of the main reasons i posted: PROTHINK RANT ON RON PAUL, its a good 19minutes, listen what this guys has to say..

prothink.podomatic.com...

There is a video, ill have to get it for you later, of a black woman asking him what he would do to help the black community, and he basically said that he would do anything to help, because we are all people of the United State no matter if your black/white/whatever else.

Come now let us reason together. Even if this man was a racist it would not matter, we as a people have grown past the mistakes of our fathers and learned that blacks, whites, hispanics, and asians are all the same. We all have the capability to excel physically, academically, and spiritually. The message that he brings to the table is one that is of great hope, and that is what matters. Seperation will never again exist in this country, there are too many whites with black friends and vise versa. This man is just trying to lay on the table the ability to have options again. Everything is so damned government controlled that if I want to speak out against a black scholarship given only to black children, or a college that is meant for only blacks or a tv show that is called black entertainment than I must be a bigot. Blacks have the comfort to be racist because of our fathers mistakes but I am called evil if I speak out against such bigotry on the other side of the fence. The playing field doesn't need to be leveled, it needs to be destroyed. There should not be handouts to blacks because of what our fathers did, instead equality should be sustained and that means complete equality, meaning that I as a white man should be able to compete for a "black scholarship" also. Black people are not the only people who have it hard in this life, but there are those who think that being white means life is easy. I wish. Ron Paul can be an advocate for white supremacy if he wants, who cares. If that is his personal preference then so be it. But his message is one of equality and freedom and the destruction of government control in our lives. So as long as his message is not tainted with his personal preferences and is aimed at the personal preferences of the majority then what his feelings and beliefs are doesn't matter. If I want to hate jews then I can, as long as that hate stays personal and never carries over into my public decisions and business life then I as an American have that right. But if I poison the world with words of hate towards these people then it is not the government's job to step in or the courts, I as a person should expect that I will have many a communitites to answer to, on a personal level. I would expect retaliation against my position since that would be the right of another American. Which that in itself is supposed to be the beauty of this country. So as a small business owner if I want to hire only whites then so be it, let me hire only whites, but when the community as a whole learns of this, then I shall reap of the consequences. We are human after all so let us reason amongst one another on a level of true logic. And the true logic is this, racism will never win because love will always triumph. If Ron Paul is racist then let it be, he is still the best candidate for America at this point. Yes my words can be picked apart as an opinion, but I grew up in savannah, ga. which for 2 decades has made the top 5 list of murder capitals in America. Most of those murders are black on black gang related murders. But if we can stop government control, welfare, income taxing and this "war on drugs," then we can start to handle things as a community again and maybe learn empathy along the way. Which is why I support Ron Paul, not because he is some great hope, but because his cause gives the power to the people again, allowing for a great hope. This is the same message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ron Paul is not a great hero, he is but a man who has his imperfections, so let us not try to destroy the character of the man, but let us instead scrutinize the words of the current message being voiced by the man. And if these words seem racist to any man, then that man needs to look in the mirror to figure out who he is. HalleluYAH praise be to YHWH. Selah, Shalom brothers and sisters. I hope these words have inspired new thoughts to many.

I don't think you can call Ron Paul a racist for accepting a donation from an individual who is a racist. On the 5th of November, Ron Paul received donations from 34,000+ people. Do you really think he can go through each individual and get their history/record and choose which donations to take? I think not. This is purely propaganda to end the Ron Paul Revolution. Be afraid you socialist pigs. Be very afraid.

reply to post by EliYahSeraphim


I agree there is definitely a double-standard and it should be dealt with.

The reason Ron Paul voted against the Civil Rights Act is becuase of the government handouts set aside for people strictly based on the race of the individual, and other unconstitutional regulations. Affirmative Action can kiss my lily-white ass.

If the individual deserves and is qualified for the job, they get the job. Forcing me to hire someone based on race is racist in itself.

Look at BET and black comedians. What if we had WET? It would be an outrage! Black comedians' bread and butter is making fun of us "honkies," yet no one wants to talk about that. Blacks in this country are FAR more racist than whites. That's a fact, Jack. You don't have to look far to see it. And the ACLU and the government just reinforce that mentality with programs like affirmative action.

I mean the United Negro College Fund? Where's the United White Folks College Fund?

The NAACP?

Boo hoo, you're so oppressed. Get over it, this is the 21st century, folks. You're no worse off than the honkies in the trailer parks.

Equal Rights for EVERYONE should be this country's position. But those in power seek to divide us, don't you see that?

The mistakes of past generations do not justify the mistakes of the present generation. Reparations my foot.

I truly believe that Dr. Paul is not a racist. How can I prove it? I can't, any more than I can prove you are not a racist. But his message, his record, and the way he presents himself and his platform are more than enough to get my vote; some obscure and unscrupulous comment in a newsletter 15 years ago is not enough to sway me. I've seen him speak (recently, no less) on the issue of race and if Ron Paul is a racist then I'm the King of England.

This country needs Ron Paul. Now more than ever.

Get busy, people. We've got a long way to go.

[edit on 1/9/08 by The Axeman]

reply to post by MiKeB420


Then deliver your own mail. Fight and finance your own wars. Don't go to the public library, buy your own books. Pull your children from public schooling. Pave your own roads, build and repair your own bridges. Don't call 911.

You talk about propaganda and in the same breath you speak of the "Ron Paul Revolution." Mere support of a political candidate does not a revolution make. You're just fervent, that's all. Get over yourself. Ron Paul speaks a message that some people want to hear, though he hasn't changed anything in the way that people think. Many of those people were already thinking in a certain way since at least the 60s, all Ron Paul did was tap into it. He talks tough and straight, sure. Still nothing has changed because of it. Government has not been overthrown or overhauled. Talk about the revolution when that happens. Paul may represent you, but the revolution should be yours, not his. If you're dependent on the Ron Paul Revolution, your revolution will never happen.

reply to post by The Axeman



If racism and bigotry weren't legalized and instituted in the first place, there would be no need for civil rights acts. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religious beliefs, national origin were in the law books, were in common practice in both public and private institutions. New laws at the local, state and federal levels were needed to override those laws. The dice were loaded in favor of a group of people. Then came the time to drain the mercury. Following that those whom the dice previously favored protested foul play. They did so as if they were for equality all along. The Jim Crow laws did exist. Institutionalized racism and discrimination did exist. Blacks couldn't work or vote, women couldn't work or vote. Employment, financial, legal, and social services at every level were infected with discriminatory practices and policy.

The irony is that Blacks have been saying for centuries that White people are no better than they are. And yet you use the same sentiment as if its an original idea of yours. The fact is that the country is more equal due to the passage of civil rights laws over the course of 125 years, ending in 1991, than it ever was before the enactment of those laws.

You're whining about quotas, quotas that ensure that qualified applicants of any race be hired. But you do not whine about quotas previous to civil rights laws that ensured that only qualified White men were hired. 100% White males only. That's a quota.

What this country needs is for people to stop buying the crap. To truly recognize that we are all US citizens, Americans, in this. Blacks are not responsible for the loss of their identity, the legalization and institution of slavery in America was. Therefore, the blame that Blacks should not have programs of their own that are designed to systematically forge a new identity for themselves should not be a cause for blame. The United Negro College Fund is not a government institution, it's a philanthropic organization that was created in response to institutionalized racism and discrimination. It was designed to not only fund the college education of black students, but also to inform Black students that it's possible for them to attain college level education and to make a worthy contribution to the US of A. That those students didn't need to subscribe to the designs of institutionalized discrimination, that they could, themselves, rise above it. Many Black students would not have received scholarships, not because they were unworthy, but because they were Black. There are Irish-American scholarships, Anglo-Jewish Scholarships, Korean American Scholarships, you name it, it's there. So why all the vitriol towards Blacks? Not that vitriol is deserved for any groups of people who wish to form and fund their own progress.

reply to post by varsityeagle089


I've just finished listening to the podcast. I agree that more critical think is required for, not just Ron Paul, but all candidates. There was quite a bit of information divulged in that 19 minutes. I, too, am not sure about how a return to a gold standard would benefit the US at this stage. Also, I, too, do not know if America owns any gold. How can we return to a gold standard if we don't own any. There hasn't been an audit of Fort Knox since forever. Probably nothing in there except Ping-Pong tables and saunas. Anyway, I need to research Ron Paul's connections with PNAC, something that I didn't know about. The podcast was an interesting listen, though I'm not sure I'm in full agreement with all that was said. I'll respond again once I get some more information. Thanks for the heads-up!