reply to post by TinfoilTP
He didn't write any of those racist remarks, they are quotes that rolled off his own tongue and spewed forth from his mouth for public consumption.
Obvious racism is obvious.
Hum...counter-fail? Those aren't all direct quotes, as I know at least some of them came from the (ghostwritten) newsletters. Additionally, when
taken IN CONTEXT, even the unsavory quotes from the newsletters seem much less so (Raimondo had a good analysis clarifying some of this
That being said...
1) My assumption is that this was likely addressing the specific public case of, yes, a specific black 13 year-old (and not written by Paul anyway...)
- without full newsletter for context, the cherry-picking makes it impossible to tell. And I would say the following is likely accurate, regardless
of who's being discussed: "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". So...the fact that he mentioned the boy is black...is racist?
2) What's racist about this? Then again, what's even being discussed? It seems to be a valid question on the surface, but where's the context?
Worthless for any valid discussion.
3) Doesn't seem inaccurate. What's the issue? The south should have been allowed to secede, it would have been cheaper to buy (and free) the slaves
if that was the issue, and Lincoln admitted he didn't care about slavery, and only freed the SOUTHERN slaves with the emancipation proclamation.
4) Context, again (and not written by Paul anyway...) - author's discussing an official study on criminal justice in DC (I've seen this one in
context), and these were the results given. What's the issue?
5) Do you have any facts you want to argue this one on to say he's incorrect? I don't see anything racist here.
6) Again, unsavory (and not written by Paul anyway...) - but is it untrue? I don't have any numbers on this handy.
7) So, supporting the repeal of Jim Crow, which likely would have been sufficient to resolve matters of public discrimination in large part without
trampling on private property rights via the '64 CRA...is a bad thing? How on EARTH can this one even be construed as racist.
8) Again, unsavory (and not written by Paul anyway...) - and based on the study this one is also discussing, is it untrue? (granted, this deals
mainly with the author's opinion on what are "sensible political opinions")
9) Is this true, or not (the first part definitely is, from a historical viewpoint)? I don't know offhand, but I don't see anything racist about it -
possibly ignorant, at worst. I've never looked into the sociological facts on this topic. Where did the quote come from? What was the context?
10) I'm inclined to agree. Crime is crime, and "hate crime" is a subject of much debate. With hate crimes legislation comes further specialized
treatment/judgement BASED on the race of the victim, and perversions of justice that sometimes result in more stringent treatment when no racial bias
has been successfully proven.
So...most of these are kind of useless for making a claim of racism, honestly. They're lacking context, knowledge of the subjects at hand, and
understanding that not all people agree on all topics. And at least four came from whoever actually wrote the newsletters, not Paul (based on style
analysis) - and he's already accepted responsibility for them, despite in-context their being much less noteworthy.
edit on 12/21/2011 by
Praetorius because: (no reason given)