It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Just want to add my comments. I don't take credit for these words, somebody else compiled this list.

Poor Ron Paul is getting nailed for stuff he has been exonerated from that is 15+ yrs old. And yet the following exists for the other candidates.

John McCain - quoted and taped saying in 2000 "I hate gooks and always will". Gook is as offensive to East Asians as n~~~~~ is to blacks - particlarly those that grew up on the West Coast in the 1960s/70s. seattlepi.nwsource......

Mike Huckabee - in 1998 book compared Homosexuality to pedophilia and necrophilia

He believed HIV patients should be quarantined...IN 1992!! (when we knew it did not spread through saliva) and wanted no federal funds to support AIDS research. Though environmentalism was the same as pornography.

Mitt Romney - said that muslims do not warrant a place in his cabinet. Called all of them radical. Local republican officials were even appalled at his racism.
Rudy Giuliani - scandals galore (married cousin, divorced, children supporting Obama over him) has recently run adds that are so similar to 1930s adds against Jews (but now against muslims). Simply go to youtube

Thompson - (edit complete, needs researched)

How about finding this direct behavior racist? Sadly these guys will get a pass.

One last thing - Bush Jr officials pushed stories about McCain having a mixed child to destroy his vote in 2000 (he in fact has an adopted bangladeshi child) to destroy his South Carolina campaign through push polling. Bush has also referred to pakistanis as Pakis - pretty offensive in most of the world to brown people.

Also at the debate Thursday night, John McCain made this statement.
"All [Muslims] want to do is trade burkas" and that he wouldn't travel with them because "they only fly one way".

Do you hold the Forbes family personally responsible for anything printed in Forbes magazine?

I agree it is very unfortunate that these comments were made, but honestly this should be less of an issue than what other candidates have said, not something Ron Paul had his name on top of a paper that he didn't write....

As for the Stormfront donation, I've heard (can't verify it but I believe it to be accurate) the same person also made a contribution to George W. Bush.

Robert Byrd of West Virginia actually was in the KKK, and yes he's been attacked because of it but certainly not like this.

I really feel this Ron Paul thing is being over hyped and intentionally released at a politically disadvantageous time. He's had to deal with it every time he runs for reelection in his district, but it still doesn't prevent him from winning.

When you can find audio or video of Ron Paul making blatant racist comments, let me know.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by Drikanna

Good selection of quotes there. That's why I'm not voting republican. If anything you just made a point that almost by nature, old school republicans have a mean streak to them.

And yes, I would hold the forbes family responsible for things printed under their name. I would also trust that they had enough sense in appointing people to a position of power within the magazine that would uphold their good name. It's a matter of judgement, and this is blatantly bad judgement.

Certainly not good enough for me to trust him to appoint people to cabinet positions or seats on the supreme court.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:23 AM
In my opinion, too many people are taking a microscopic view at one candidate and need to step back and look at the bigger picture. We are living in a house where the infrastructure is rotting and the foundation is cracking, but all the politicians/media do is argue over what color to paint the house.

If you havent noticed, news networks are no more genuine than the variety of "reality" tv shows and their only real job is to distract the American public and discredit those who would have us upset the status quo.

Would you really deny a candidate your vote because of a small donation from one ignorant person you find repulsive, or would you rather vote for the candidate with the best PR spin, funded by defense contractors, oil barons, or pharmaceutical companies (blood money from all) who only want to increase their profit margins?

As an addendum, I find it very disheartening to hear people say they wont vote for Ron Paul because he wont win. If you believe him to be your best choice and dont vote for him, then you have failed both you and him. Even if he loses, at least all the usual suspects will know there is a large number of Americans who want actual change in our government.

Our democracy was once "for the people, by the people." Isnt it time we had that again?

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by infinite
Are you surprised?

He openly criticised the Civil Rights Act, that's when I lost all interest in Paul.

Did you know that the Civil Rights Act did not apply everywhere equally?
That makes it unconstitutional, even if the courts say it is OK. I didn't hear Ron Paul criticize the Civil Rights Act, but I'd bet that was his basis for criticizing it. Most of his Constitutional arguments are sound, even if his opinions on other subjects are not as sound.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:54 PM
I fail to see what is "racist" about the statements under discussion.

Are they true or not?

I think they are.

The brainwashed masses see every mention of negativity about other than whites as E-Vile.
It is sad and scary that they cannot handle the Truth.

Stating a truth has nothing to do with hate.
Just face the facts.

There is no law that can force people to love eacch other.

Since this 1964 legislation we have all had a chance to see how these people behave. I judge them on their behavior. Don't you?

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:19 PM
I have just read a few more pages of this.

It is incredible the childish bikering y'all are doing.

Understand that this term "racist" and its inferences were invented and propagandized to create further division among us.
The blacks were intenionally sensitized.
The whites were intentionally made to feel guilty, and thereby tolerant of a lot of unaceptable behavior by all other than whites.

You've been had.

It is past time to wake up and grow up

This country needs independent thinkers who are not susceptable to the constant provocations put out by the media. Learn the truth and call it what it is. Only then can you effectively deal with it.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:35 PM

- The average Black commits murder about 7.1 times more often than the average "White" (where "White" includes Hispanics etc.)

- The average Black commits interracial murder about 13.8 times more often than the average "White" (where "White: includes Hispanics etc.)

- The average Black kills a "White" 15.9 times more often than the reverse.

Is this true?

take a look at "race crime washington dc 1990" over on google...

Perhaps at that time and place there was a stereo type to be spoken of?

...the peak of the violent crime wave in the early 1990s, Washington, D.C., was known as the murder capital[1] of the United States.

...all the scholarly time I have for the moment; let me know what you find.

Sri Oracle

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:51 PM
I wouldn't use the white history site as a scholarly resource.

Look up government statistics

Yes, DC was known as the "murder capitol". It still has a reputation for violence.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
Keep in mind that the bad guys think, plan and orchestrate events years and years and years in advance. They play no sides and all sides. The founder of the KKK was also the highest ranking Mason at the time. Creating negative conditions opens the door to leveraging those conditions against populations in the future. World events are manipulated to a far greater degree than most of us realize. People are planted and cultivated all the time, GW, being only an example, Hilary another, Obama likely another, Nixon, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Himler, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Mohammad, Gore, Kerry, etc, etc, etc.

Also keep in mind, that many, many, many events are planned for a purpose other than as stated. That includes wars, causes, etc.. For example in the 70s/80s came the "Gas Crisis" and the national speed limit of 55. Where did the government get authority for that? Really, the press and collusion of state governments against the constitution. The 10th amendment is our saving grace, it more or less says that ALL rights, powers and authorities of the federal government are spelled out in the constitution. If it's not stated as a federal right, in the constitution, the feds don't get it and never will. All rights not specifically given to the "Feds", belong to the individual State and or the Citizen. Half of what is fed authority is illegitimate. But to make the "Fed" seem all powerful and over us, the feds, in collusion with the bankers (Feds + Bankers = Fascism or Federalism), leverage what authority they have and this gives us the impression of their importance and a sense of dependence on them (rather than the feds being dependent on us). For example a power the Feds constitutionally have in collusion with President, is war! So, we have, more or less perpetual war, "National Patriotism", "National Anthems", hero presidents, or presidential candidates, etc., etc..

If the Federalist/Bankers/Fascists hadn't cultivated slavery and cultivated the civil war, failed to assist the blacks after the civil war, then cultivated anti-black there wouldn't have a cause to promote federalism around. Not unlike fabricating terrorism and anti-muslim, anti-middleeasterner. Keep in mind, the Jesuits stated a few years ago that the early Vatican created Islam. Without "Them", the enemy, there wouldn't have been crusades or the "Terrorist Threat" of today. Show me a Muslim terrorist and I'll show is someone cultivated by the CIA or brainwashed in the military, or a mercenary pretending to be a Muslim, or some guy sucked in he is allowed to screw himself over with a goofy plan that fits in somewhere to the fake cause.

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 09:11 PM
The only way to get minorities, namely blacks and mexicans, on equal footing with the rest of America in areas of social respect and social equality, is to somehow raise them above the criminal mentality of being a 70 -85% responsible for crime and imprisonment. The stats do not lie. These people are a huge problem in these areas.
Now I suppose I'm racist for yet again pointing this out. The truth is racist.
Blame it on the truth. When the numbers come down so will the social racism.
I think Ron Paul is the minorities best chance for social equality. I believe he would govern all of his constituents according to the Constitution. He would fight against the racial fires now set by media. They always seek to devise race issues and racial tension.
Everyone would fall under the law of the land. WE could never go back to black only restrooms and such. Therefore the law would apply equally to all. cantyousee

[edit on 13-1-2008 by cantyousee]

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 09:22 PM

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in