Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by RowdyAmerican1
Great Video there , this Man has no " Blinders" over his Eyes , he sees Clearly the Situation that the Right Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is in right now concerning the Blatant Attempted Undermining of his Presidential Campaign buy the Bought and Paid for Mudslinging MSM . I have also noted that MOST of these Unfounded Claims of Racism on Dr. Paul's part are being brought up by WHITE News Media Personalities and Politicians . Where are All the Other Claims that Dr. Paul is somehow a Racist by People of Color themselves ? To date , I have not hear a ONE Mention it . Strange, isn't it ? ........Hmm.........
For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.
“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”
A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.
The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”
A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”
Originally posted by RowdyAmerican1
It is very clear what the establishment is up too! They are doing their best to crucify Ron Paul, but it's back firing on them. The more they sling mud, the more people listen to him and make their own decisions.
Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
LOL , Come On Man , MSNBC ? Al Sharpton reading Prewritten PropoSpeech Ala Obama on a Telepropter (And rather BADLY I might add) . You call that an OUTRAGE against Ron Paul's Alledged Racism ? As for Dr. James Peterson, was that a Held in Smile on his Face while that MSNBC Tool was reading him the Riot Act ? Geez , those bits bring a Whole New Meaning to the term " LAMEstream Media" ..... .....edit on 25-12-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
I have also noted that MOST of these Unfounded Claims of Racism on Dr. Paul's part are being brought up by WHITE News Media Personalities and Politicians . Where are All the Other Claims that Dr. Paul is somehow a Racist by People of Color themselves ? To date , I have not hear a ONE Mention it . Strange, isn't it ? ........Hmm.........
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl12
I find it very amusing that the anti-Paul people who are arguing about race are probably not even black or even care about black people. Now they fight for all blackkind against the evil Ron Paul. This is there way to be noticed on ATS or maybe they're just plan old Provaciteaurs...who knows
Originally posted by xavi1000
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.
It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association.
Its name is a variation on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card, by analogy to playing the race card.
The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent. While an ad Hitlerum is often used to directly compare a statement to a view held by Hitler, it can be used informally to compare any thing to any other thing.
The term ad Hitlerum can be used to describe most association fallacies.
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage.
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.
Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.