NAACP should endorse Dr Paul

Ok before all the racist poop comes out

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

www.prisonplanet.com...
A few points in the interview I agree with Mr. Linder on, like focusing more on how his view will improve the social net created over the last 70 years while the actually austrian free market economy can provide at the min the same level of insured support. But I digress

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution Tuesday calling for an end to the “War on Drugs” during their 102th NAACP Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA.

I don't know about you but when I hear NAACP I at least stop and listen to what they say before I dismiss it as something else. The NAACP wields a lot of power, good or bad, but it does and it should be acknowledged. But it is power they get from their members not some government funding that I know of, correct me if I am wrong.

“Today the NAACP has taken a major step towards equity, justice and effective law enforcement,” said NAACP president and CEO Benjamin Jealous. “These flawed drug policies that have been mostly enforced in African American communities must be stopped and replaced with evidenced-based practices that address the root causes of drug use and abuse in America.”

It is far more then a major step, it is one of the largest "grass roots" organisation's turning its collect power in one area where its really needed. I don't care if you are left, right or centrist, The war on drugs is a horrible idea made real.

The resolution, titled “A Call to End the War on Drugs, Allocate Funding to Investigate Substance Abuse Treatment, Education, and Opportunities in Communities of Color for A Better Tomorrow” highlighted the fact that the United States spends $40 billion each year fighting the drug war and that African-Americans are 13 times more likely to end up in jail for drug-related crimes than their white counterparts.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution Tuesday calling for an end to the “War on Drugs” during their 102th NAACP Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA.

First, this is GREAT NEWS. The NAACP wields tremendous polical power, and this can do nothing but help kill the War on Poor People, Liberty, and Freedom.

As to your OP, anyone that wishes to be free of the federal government should endorse Dr. Paul. The claims of racism because of those papers has been hashed and rehashed every time he bids for office. In my thread on claims of racism, which you generously posted in, I believe, the claims were convincingly debunked. While I still question how those articles got past him, there is ample evidence that racism is not a part of the man.

If the NAACP officially endorses him, the debates in 2012 will be Obama vs. Dr. Paul IMHO.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American


If the NAACP officially endorses him, the debates in 2012 will be Obama vs. Dr. Paul IMHO.

/TOA

And that is one debate I truly would welcome to actually follow, any other candidate and its more of the same crap, who is a better criminal then the other. After Mr Browne passed, I swore I would never vote again, however, I think I might have to break that promise.

How do you call bringing up relevant facts about Pauls history, when he is running for President, a smear campaign?

Do you feel the people don't have a right to know about what he allows to be published in his newsletter? Statements like the following are very relevant in regards to anybody trying to run for office:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

Now even if these statements were written by other individuals they still appeared in HIS newsletter and if you wish to claim he simply didn't know what's being published under his name disqualifies him as an effective manager and if you can't manage your own newsletter than how are you going to manage the country?

Originally posted by kro32
How do you call bringing up relevant facts about Pauls history, when he is running for President, a smear campaign?

Do you feel the people don't have a right to know about what he allows to be published in his newsletter? Statements like the following are very relevant in regards to anybody trying to run for office:

People have every right to know the facts of a story. If I remember correctly, you are one of those thugs wearing a shiny badge in a clown suit, so it doesn't surprise me that you would be the first to attempt to derail the thread into racism in order to preserve your "way of life". We know your type hates the NAACP as well as Dr. Paul.

Now even if these statements were written by other individuals they still appeared in HIS newsletter and if you wish to claim he simply didn't know what's being published under his name disqualifies him as an effective manager and if you can't manage your own newsletter than how are you going to manage the country?

The same exact thing can be said about anyone and every one in a political office. Your days are numbered, it can end peaceably(my choice) or in violent blood shed, its in your corner how you want this to end.

Love your internet courage lol and I was specifically addressing the point of this thread. Sorry if the facts about your man disturb you but if you can't handle it than perhaps you should pick another candidate or at least try to debate my post with actual facts rather than threatening to kill me.

But whatever floats your boat

Originally posted by kro32
Love your internet courage lol and I was specifically addressing the point of this thread. Sorry if the facts about your man disturb you but if you can't handle it than perhaps you should pick another candidate or at least try to debate my post with actual facts rather than threatening to kill me.

But whatever floats your boat

The point of the thread is not his supposed racism, do you even bother to read? The thread is about the NAACP coming out in support of ending the "war" on drugs.

As far as internet courage, I don't hide behind anything, if you can't find out who I am within about 15 mins of googling, perhaps you need to rethink your ability to perform your job as a LEO.

Dr. Paul is not my candidate, I do not vote, I haven't in a very long time, as. unike you, I will not compromise my moral values by choosing one criminal over another.

reply to post by NuroSlam

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

That is from the original post and what I was responding too. As soon as Paul becomes a legitimate threat these will be all over the news again just like they were in the past. Along with his statements saying he would not have voted for civil rights.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

That is from the original post and what I was responding too. As soon as Paul becomes a legitimate threat these will be all over the news again just like they were in the past. Along with his statements saying he would not have voted for civil rights.

Yes, I understand how you are attempting to side step the actually thread itself. Since there are already threads on that issue,
I'm going to show you a lot more respect then you show those "beneath" you and ask you to direct the issue of his racism to the thread dealing with that issue.
Is Ron Paul a racist

reply to post by NuroSlam


If you would rather stick to the drug issue it get's worse from Ron Paul but that's your choice. Here you go:

You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws.

www.brainyquote.com...

He is of course forgetting all the drug wars that will still be happening or violence associated with the drug world however we just won't be able to prosecute for them because he will eliminate the laws.

He's an idiot to the 33rd degree

Originally posted by kro32

He is of course forgetting all the drug wars that will still be happening or violence associated with the drug world however we just won't be able to prosecute for them because he will eliminate the laws.

He's an idiot to the 33rd degree

Just like what happened with alcohol prohibition? Really, its the black market aspect that is creating the crime. Your support of the war on drugs is destroying people rather then attempting to "help" them. Your support of the war on drugs is tearing families apart, and its killing innocent people while giving you a pass to commit murder. I'm sorry that if he gets elected you will need to find a new way to leach off of society.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Well we could look at Portugal who legalized drugs and while the cases of Aids went down, which is why they were forced to do it, the amount of long term users of drugs skyrocketed. Apparantly Mr. Paul does not associate any negatives to getting rid of all drug laws which shows he is incapabale of looking at the full picture before he makes his statements.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Well we could look at Portugal who legalized drugs and while the cases of Aids went down, which is why they were forced to do it, the amount of long term users of drugs skyrocketed. Apparantly Mr. Paul does not associate any negatives to getting rid of all drug laws which shows he is incapabale of looking at the full picture before he makes his statements.

So which is it? is it the crime as you said above, or is it the amount of users? Care to link your sources on this? And since his view is it should revert to the state level, you should be ok with it since you will be able to move into a draconian police state and find employment.

I think a lot of obama's contributors have more money to throw around than ron paul has in whole...

Is money ever a deciding factor in the NAACP's major decisions . . . ?

Originally posted by 1825114
I think a lot of obama's contributors have more money to throw around than ron paul has in whole...

Is money ever a deciding factor in the NAACP's major decisions . . . ?

I'm sure, just like with any other organisation, money plays a roll, If the NAACP did actually endorse Dr. Paul, they would be cutting the legs off the establishment of the democrat base, much like the tea party is doing to the republicans.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Well we could look at Portugal who legalized drugs and while the cases of Aids went down, which is why they were forced to do it, the amount of long term users of drugs skyrocketed. Apparantly Mr. Paul does not associate any negatives to getting rid of all drug laws which shows he is incapabale of looking at the full picture before he makes his statements.

Or he thinks like me in that Darwinism will take care of them. He doesn't really, of course. He's on the record as saying that as a doctor they should be helped not imprisoned. But I like the Darwinism theory myself.

/TOA

reply to post by kro32


This journalistic piece was written in response to a Cato Institute study.
williamflew.wordpress.com...

The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso. The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals."

So somebody has figures that speak differenently. Portugal hasn't decriminalised drugs they're just not declaring a war instead treating things as substance abuse problems and seemingly getting much more socially useful statistics than those declaring war.