It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
White southern men are naturally more inclined to be racist. It's just a common fact...
Ron Paul probably does harbor some of these sentiments, because some of them are true, but I wouldn't say that he's an out right racist.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

While I am not quick to label anyone a racist, we all have our personal likes and dislikes, and there is all sorts and levels of "ism's". Dr. Paul did allow these newsletters to be published under his name, by close associates. I have to assume, because I do not have the facts in front of me, that he read them, and allowed them to be published. So therefore, at the very least, he is not only guilty of trust, but guilty at the very least by association, and if he truly allowed them to be published under his name, after review, then he is guilty as charged.


Not an unfair assessment. I would point out, however, that his newsletter was published by practically an army of people. He would give them his writings and they would publish it. True, he should've been more vigilant and proof-read everything that went into it, but I have trouble keeping up with my 13 year old. I can't imagine trying to keep up with a newsletter read by hundreds of thousands of people, on top of the duties of being a Congressman.


I supported Obama in 2008, I am sorely disappointed in his performance to date, however, there is no one who has announced their candidacy on the Republican side of the ticket, that I feel represents any sort of mainstream electability. Ron Paul has some great ideas, but I do not believe him to be electable.


The only unelectable candidate is the one that everyone thinks is unelectable. Thanks for your comments.

/TOA


If this man does not have the ability to find out what is being published in his newsletter than why is he even putting one out? That is absolutely unresponsible.

It's more than likely he does know what's in it and agreed that the racists statements were ok to print. People may try to cover for him but the facts on this look bad for Paul either way you slice it.

Either he has no problem with racist statements or he doesn't have the ability to maintain control of what's going on around him.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
I find it very difficult to believe that for a block of time that spanned years, Ron Paul had absolutely no clue what was being said in his name. Are we to believe that no friend, staffer, fellow politician ever called him out on this or worse never brought these news letters up to agree with Ron Paul? Sorry, but he can't claim ignorance here.

I find it ironic that here is concrete proof of a wrong doing, those that are venomously hateful toward our President and blather on about getting a date wrong, simply shrug their shoulders and say oh well it's ok he didn't write it.

So yes, I believe he is or was racist. I think at this point it would be better for him to admit it and say his views have changed than to treat the american public like we're gullible.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2011 by Kali74 because: spelling errors, added to


How difficult is it to believe that for only that time period that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were involved with his newsletter was the only period where we see this kind of racially motivated speech? And never before or since have we heard from Dr. Paul anything like it?

He has stated his stance on the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not be able to tell a business who they can serve or hire. And he has stated that he believes if businesses only hire whites, or blacks, or Latinos, or only men, or only women, they will be regulated by the people in that they will lose business and have to either adjust or close.

You believe one way, I believe another. But I believe that 30 years of consistency is more valid than 5 or so years of inconsistency.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


well that gives pauls stance on states rights more power.

issues are state issues.


I don't know where Ron Paul stands on those specific issues, I'd need a link to his actual position. However, if you believe it's justify to have the state tell you who you can't and can marry based on race, or where you could not go based on race, it's just fascism. Fascism at the state level does not make any less fascist.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ron Paul is a politician and you should never trust what a politician says. You should judge them by their actions and Pauls actions here are deplorable any way you look at it. Perhaps there are more racist examples out there that have yet to be uncovered or maybe he's really good at covering it up.

It really doesn't matter if this was only a one time event as that is enough. He is also a strict constitutionalist also so probably believes slavery should still be legal.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Yes I'm well aware of the 64' civil rights act and Ron Paul's stance and you know what, if he's just concerned about private property then yes, it doesnt make him a racist in that sense. However, Ron Paul and Rand Paul have been very silent toward the other aspect of states rights, the one that Barry Goldwater in the 60's and confederate advocates in the 1860's argued for. The idea that states should decide on matters of slavery, racial segregation, interracial marriage. This idea that it's perfectly justifiable to have fascism at the state level... because well, "its at the state level".



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by The Old American
 


How does Ron Paul feel about states rights interms of racial segregation and marriage?

Can the state of Texas establish their own form of racial segregation?
Can Kentucky ban interracial couples from getting married?

He just needs to clarify his position here, and then I'll clarify whether he is a racist or not.


How does he feel about it? I suppose he feels that the government needs to stay out of segregation and marriage and let those be state matters. I say that because that's been his public position for 30 years or more. It's odd that his consistency keeps having to be pointed out. It's almost like people willfully just delete that from memory.

As far as the other two questions, I can't speak for him except to say the same thing I said above. But I'm pretty sure he'll say that since neither of those conditions can exist lawfully under the current system, he'll abide by them.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


no not the state nor the federal government

the power of the individual to self govern

people need to sort their out crap out and it neither be dictated by state or the federal government.

i believe that is pauls stance. at least its mine.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
How does he feel about it? I suppose he feels that the government needs to stay out of segregation and marriage and let those be state matters.


So you're saying that Ron Paul agrees with this notion that Texas can implement it's own racial segregation laws and anti-interracial laws, and this is perfectly fine with him and you? So the state government can discrimminate against you in a public setting on the basis of the colour of your skin, and you're fine with this? Just clarify your stance for me again.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


no not the state nor the federal government

the power of the individual to self govern

people need to sort their out crap out and it neither be dictated by state or the federal government.

i believe that is pauls stance. at least its mine.


I don't know if thats Pauls stance. Barry Goldwater for example, one of the pioneers of libertarianism in the 60's, believed that issues of interracial marriage and segregation were states issue. The federal government had to stay out of it, and the individuals had to accept that their own state governments could discrimminate against them and their lively hoods. The idea of the individual to self govern on the basis of marriage and who they associate with and where they go sounds wonderful, but many libertarians in the past believed that states had the right to implement imposing laws against those individualist values.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
First of all, "racist" is an adjective, not a noun. Saying that someone is "a" racist is superfluous.

Putting my grammatical Nazism aside, from what I know of Ron Paul he is not prejudiced in any way. Accusing someone of racism, especially a political figure, is a fast-tracked way to splinter their reputation in the eyes of the populace.


Racist is an adjective when used as a noun modifier.
Racist is a noun when used as a subject.

And I believe you are correct about Dr. Paul. I do believe that he should've been more vigilant in watching what was printed in his newsletter, but his trust of Rockwell was tainted by his friendship. Now it's coming back to bite him.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Well if he gets in trouble with friendships at this low level why would anyone want to risk him making that kind of mistake as a President when the repercussions could be 10 fold. This little gaff shows plainly that he doesn't have the responsibility to be President where the stakes are much greater.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
White southern men are naturally more inclined to be racist. It's just a common fact...
Ron Paul probably does harbor some of these sentiments, because some of them are true, but I wouldn't say that he's an out right racist.


Really? What a fascinating observation. Are you, perhaps, a white Southern man and thus personally afflicted? Or is this something you read on the innernets?

I, actually being a white Southern man, oddly aren't afflicted with that natural inclination for some reason. Maybe I have a mutant gene or something. I wonder if science can clone it and inoculate all of the other rednecks!

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Imho Ron Paul is far too intelligent to be a racist, any such accusations thrown at him are ill informed, badly thought out, politically motivated or just plain old wrong.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

If this man does not have the ability to find out what is being published in his newsletter than why is he even putting one out? That is absolutely unresponsible.

It's more than likely he does know what's in it and agreed that the racists statements were ok to print. People may try to cover for him but the facts on this look bad for Paul either way you slice it.

Either he has no problem with racist statements or he doesn't have the ability to maintain control of what's going on around him.


Actually it's irresponsible.

Grammar lessons aside, there are several truths here: that the racially-charged speech existed in his newsletter, that others have come forward and pointed to Lew Rockwell as the ghostwriters, that Dr. Paul has never before or since said anything like what was printed in those letters. A "preponderance of the evidence" is with him as to whether he actually wrote those things.

As to why he didn't stamp it out? I have no idea. All anyone can do is based purely on conjecture and bias. Your bias is that you believe him a racist or a moron. Mine is that he had too many responsibilities as a practicing doctor and a congressman to put out a newsletter and should have either paid more attention to it, or just scrapped it.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Yea i'll agree with that i guess and yea I know my grammer sucks but i'm working on it.

I don't think I could vote for this guy as there are some questions hanging around him that seem peculiar to me but everyone has the right to give it shot.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Ron Paul is NOT racist. Nelson Linder, NAACP, says he's not racist and I think Nelson would know. Unfortunately, that video I bookmarked years ago has been removed. Perhaps there are others on youtube. I did find this article, though:

The Austin NAACP President Supports Ron Paul Against Charges of Racism
saintluke.wordpress.com...

Did you know why Ron Paul voted no to giving Rosa Parks the Medal of Honor, although he states she's one of his heroes (heroines)? He doesn't think the tax payers should have to pay for something like that. But know what? He suggested that Congress buy her the Medal themselves and offered to throw in the first $100. NOT ONE CONGRESSPERSON TOOK HIM UP ON HIS OFFER. "They" have no problem spending taxpayer's money, though. Are the rest of them racist?

Ron Paul Offers to Chip In $100 for Gold Medal to Rosa Parks
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by The Old American
How does he feel about it? I suppose he feels that the government needs to stay out of segregation and marriage and let those be state matters.


So you're saying that Ron Paul agrees with this notion that Texas can implement it's own racial segregation laws and anti-interracial laws, and this is perfectly fine with him and you? So the state government can discrimminate against you in a public setting on the basis of the colour of your skin, and you're fine with this? Just clarify your stance for me again.


Quite the opposite, padawan! His "notion" is that there should not be any governmental enforcement of racial segregation of businesses because the people will self-govern, just like I said 6 posts up from yours. As far as marriage, it should be a state matter. The people will, again, self-govern. California put it up to a vote of the people. The people said no. They self-governed. Maybe if they vote again, they will vote yes. They will self-govern.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Perhaps in the distant past your ancestry was tainted with some good none racist Northern blood, far be it from me to be either presumptuous or offensive but perhaps this good Northern none racist blood got into your genes as a result of a rape in the civil war or some similar unfortunate turn of events.

I'm sure as an educated Southern gentleman you appreciate my intent and won't take offence at my mention of things best left unmentioned as I doubt whether the events I postulated actually occurred to any female relative however distant.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by The Old American
 


Well if he gets in trouble with friendships at this low level why would anyone want to risk him making that kind of mistake as a President when the repercussions could be 10 fold. This little gaff shows plainly that he doesn't have the responsibility to be President where the stakes are much greater.


Oh really? Who are Obama's friends? Bill Ayers? Reverend Wright? We don't all have angels like you as a friend.
And you said it, sir: this is a little gaff.

/TOA
edit on 11-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join