Who here is lying? CNN, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle? Or Ron Paul?
Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments176 - roger nowosielski
As an addendum, and before Christopher Rose jumps in to correct me, let me qualify:
The notion of "evidence" is relative in the sense that it depends on what the accepted standard is, the purpose of the inquiry, and who is doing the admitting.
177 - pablo
127 Dread
Your remark about the 9th amendment has no bearing here. Aside from race and gender because of current US law, which in my opinion is unconstitutional, if you were considering renting a house to someone you can discriminate til the cows come home. If you don't like their hair style, their smell, the way they don't smile, if they are too fat, or too thin, too short or too tall, and you damned well know it Dread, and there is not a thing someone can do about it claiming that their unenumerated 9th amendment rights were violated, lol.
People can and do discriminate all of the time both personally and in business, that is a fact. There are literally thousands of reasons that can come into play here. I am not saying that I endorse racism, I dont, but I do endorse freedom, and part of freedom is the right to discern, whether out of wisdom or ignorance, and indeed bigotry.
Another thing Dread when you say that the US constitution is not the end all and be all of US law you are clearly mistaken. It is true that judges use wide latitude in determining and opining, however you cannot show me one case where any judge has ever said that a law can stand that is repugnant to the constitution. Sure there is such things as rational basis, and strict scrutiny, substantive and procedural law, however if any act of congress, or an executive order, is found to be in violation of the constitution it is null and void on its face, and only remains until overturned based on the color of law.
Glenn 172
Just as there is nothing so distasteful as a reformed smoker, I suggest the same in a reformed racist. I do not nor have I ever had a racist bone in my body. I was raised differently than you pal, by real liberal parents. I was taught from day one that the color of a persons skin means nothing other than they have a different color skin.
You freely admit your errant ways, and that is good on you, however I think you forget that your still not enlightened, and you have a long long long ways to go. If you could see yourself the way that I do, WOW. Do you know the root of ignorance Glenn? It is ignore, and I see you do that on a continual basis in your self righteous so called liberalism, up to and including the current commander in thief, who is nothing more than a wall street whore, and shows that every day of the week.
178 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger #175 -
If there were not a fulfilled prophecy that I could verify for myself, I'd agree with you. But there is, and I don't.
179 - Glenn Contrarian
and Roger -
The notion of "evidence" is relative in the sense that it depends on what the accepted standard is, the purpose of the inquiry, and who is doing the admitting.
Moving the goalposts, are we? The only manner in which character witnesses can be used as actual evidence is to show that there are people with familial, moral, societal, or professional standing who hold a particular opinion. Their opinion itself is not evidence - only the fact that they hold said opinion can be used as actual evidence.
That is, unless one moves the goalposts and changes the definition of evidence. Now put the goalposts back where they belong, Roger, and stop trying to wriggle out of the FACT that several reputable newspapers provided EVIDENCE that not one of you has been able to refute.
180 - Glenn Contrarian
pablo -
In the eyes of NON-smokers, reformed smokers are pretty cool. I've never seen any non-smoker like myself have any problem whatsoever with a reformed smoker. It's only the SMOKERS who think there's nothing worse than a non-smoker!
So...what then, would that say about those who think there's nothing worse than a reformed racist? Thanks for providing me with a good retort to one of Roger's 'logical' crutches!
When it comes to ignorance, pablo, I am very ignorant about many things - I've got zero problem admitting that! Thing is, I've found over the years that the more someone truly knows, the more someone realizes just how ignorant he or she really is. Of course, this does not stop me from being ready, willing, and able to stand up for those things that I do know. I take little offense at being told how ignorant I am, especially when it comes from someone like you who presents himself as being knowledgeable enough to judge, who has obviously seen, been, and done SO many more things than I have.
BTW, pablo - that last sentence, and ONLY that last sentence, is sarcasm.
181 - Irene Athena
Glenn says: That's [freedom for the owner to decide who he will allow on his property] what Ron Paul would allow, and I SINCERELY suspect that not a single one of the blacks who support him (1) realize that he WOULD allow such to happen, AND (2) have ever seen a business with "white" and "colored" entrances.
Your sincere suspicions, Glenn, do NOT count as evidence that not a single black person who supports Ron Paul is is aware that bigots would not allow them on their property. Listen to some of the videos out there, Glenn. THEY DON'T CARE. They don't want to be on the property of bigots.
You question the judgment of not only all black people expressing their support of Ron Paul in the videos in #153, #155, #161, #162, #164 and #168, but the judgement of ANY black person who supports him. How incredibly patronizing!
Note the age of some of the black people at the Ron Paul meetup group IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA. (#153) They are old enough to be your contemporaries certainly, Glenn, and this is key: unlike you, they've stayed in the South. They have learned to make peace with, and become co-laborers with, those from whom they were formerly separated by racial prejudice.
You moved out of the South and never looked back, Glenn, except to cast disparaging glances. You've married a Filipina. So what? That does NOT put you more in touch with the concerns of black Americans than black Americans themselves.
Yes, I've read your article, and no, it didn't convince me that Ron Paul was a racist, any more than ANY of what you say about anyone else being a racist convinces me. The newspaper prints "in an article he wrote" instead of "in an article in an investment newsletter he had authorized others to write." Rather than taking the word of some unknown journalist/editor, I'm going to take the word of Ron Paul himself, who has a reputation even among political enemies of being honest, and of Nelson Linder, former president of the Austin division of the NAACP, who has known Ron Paul for over twenty years and vehemently denies that he is a racist, and in fact admires his work in defense of blacks in the criminal justice system.
182 - Clavos
It's only the SMOKERS who think there's nothing worse than a non-smoker!
Actually, there's nothing worse than a reformed anything -- except of course, for reformers.
183 - roger nowosielski
@179
Not at all -- a courtroom is but one of many context in which the concept of "evidence" plays a vital role. There is "evidence" within a given scientific community, "evidence" in the context of ordinary parlance, etc. etc. Even courtrooms may differ from locality to locality, culture to culture, present and past. What was admissible as evidence during the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition (Joan D'Arc, for example) is not admissible in some courtrooms today.
You just assumed I was operating within the confines specified by your own example. Well, I wasn't.
184 - Glenn Contrarian
Irene -
I don't question the judgment of the blacks who support Ron Paul - I question their knowledge of his positions. Again, how many of the blacks know that Ron Paul would support the right of a business to have "white" and "colored" entrances?
And you know what? You might find a few - just as there were indeed a few Jews who supported Hitler.
185 - Glenn Contrarian
So in Roger-world, evidence ain't evidence until Roger has decided whether it's evidence or not.
Why didn't I see that before? It's all so simple now!
186 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Soooo...there's nothing worse than a reformed criminal? That means that our entire justice system is a waste of time.
Gotta watch those broad-brush statements....
187 - roger nowosielski
To abstract the subject matter somewhat, Irene, I must confess that I'm somewhat conflicted about the issue of whether the Federal government has a right to impose uniform standard regarding, say, race discrimination in public places, such as restaurants, for example, which places of business are subject to local (and or federal?) licensing, as opposed to the rights of the business owners themselves.
But this is just one (however acute an) example of many similar such (seemingly) irresolvable conflicts which arise in the context of Federal (government) vs. State disputes. (To my thinking, it's but another example of the many contradictions which arise from the inherently contradictory concept of statehood,)
In this connection, it might be instructive to ask: to what extent would we be riddled with selfsame problems if we operated, say, within the confines of any given community? Would those problems be just as seeming irresolvable and just as acute?
188 - Irene Athena
Even though the Reason article from which you quote extensively was written by Matt Welch, who was described by another libertarian as a "Neocon Mouthpiece", you won't have to look any further than the dates of the quotations to see that the answer to the question you posed in your title is: No.
Matt Welch presents them as a confusing mish-mash. When you put them in chronological order, they make sense, and vindicate Ron Paul.
#184: So you're saying that all those Ron Paul supporting blacks in the videos I posted, and in fact ALL blacks who support Ron Paul, are supporting him without adequate knowledge of his positions. In other words, you're questioning their judgment. Gotta watch those broad-brush statements... Indeed.
189 - roger nowosielski
@185 - is that what I said?
190 - Glenn Contrarian
And Irene -
Does one have to be, say, Jewish in order to understand how bad Nazi Germany was? Does one have to be Japanese in order to understand how bad their imprisonment in America in WWII was? Does someone have to be Chinese in order to understand how bad the Rape of Nanking was during WWII? Does someone have to be Tutsi in order to understand how bad the Rwanda genocide was?
Perhaps as a matter of degree, in order to understand how bad it was, yes. But it does NOT require being a part of any of these ethnic groups in order to understand that what they faced was unquestionably wrong...and forcing "white" and "colored" entrances on blacks is wrong in every way.
AND IRENE - that place that had the "white" and "colored" entrances in Shaw, Mississippi? That was at the ONLY doctor's office in town. Anyone who didn't have a car had NO choice but to go to that doctor's office. The blacks often had NO choice but to use THAT doctor.
But I get it - since I'm speaking up against Ron Paul using his own words, his own positions, and my own firsthand experience, I'm obviously the stupid bigot because I'm daring to say something that doesn't agree with your personal dogma.
191 - Irene Athena
#190, para. 4: drink a glass of cold water, breathe, and stop being hysterical. You said those things. I didn't.
Your first-hand experience is five decades old, when business-owners HAD NO CHOICE BUT to require black and white only signs. Fast-forward, and here's Glenn also wanting to restrict freedom, so that business-owners HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to take those signs down. The ACLU isn't racist, but it defends the first amendment right of the KKK to have parades through towns where blacks might be offended.
Attitudes have changed so much, and you are forgetting that they've changed when you assume that the South would be transmogrified back into some 1950's segregated hell.
If the freedom to post No Blacks signs were given today, there would still be plenty of places, like this Ron Paul Meet-up in Atlanta, where blacks and whites freely assemble. How ridiculous to think that ANY whites who have respectful attitudes toward blacks today would revert to racism if "No Blacks" signs went up. As to the dyed-in-the-wool bigoted business-owner, he gets to put out what amounts to an "I am a Bigot" shingle. That's far more likely to be the downfall of that business than the downfall of the South.
192 - Irene Athena
The thing I'm defending here is not the glories of "whites only" signs. It's freedom from the meddling of federal government in local affairs. The same people who are prophesying the resurrection of 1950's segregation are also preaching that integration at any cost is better than de facto segregation.
Many black parents have stopped buying it. They've seen that de jure integration of schools is, in general, not helping their children academically, and is also hurting them psychologically and socially.
193 - Clavos
The "reformed criminal," is the (rare) exception that proves the rule, Glenn.
194 - Costello
Maybe I am misreading this, but Glenn thinks he's smarter than a group of blacks who support Paul yet he runs around calling other people racist?
195 - roger nowosielski
A knee jerk reaction, Costello, just a knee jerk reaction.
Let's hope one of these days we'll cure him of it.
196 - Glenn Contrarian
Irene -
No, my experience is less than thirty years old. The signs were still posted above the entrance doors to the only doctor's office in town when I went back there on leave from the Navy in 1984...twenty years after passage of the Civil Rights Act. And while we're at it, here's the results of the lawsuit against Tyson Foods for having segregated bathrooms. Is Tyson foods going broke anytime soon? No.
AND IF RACIAL ATTITUDES HAVE CHANGED SO GREATLY, Irene, then why is it that in 2011 - THIS year - that 46% of Mississippi Republicans still think that interracial marriage should be illegal? They don't just oppose it - they think it should be ILLEGAL.
Yes, Irene, attitudes have changed for the better - but they have NOT changed to the pollyannish degree that you seem to think they have...and the very worst thing we could do is to go back to those days when racism was the norm rather than the exception. We would even worsen the problem of economic "ghettoization", schools would become more segregated once more, and the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice.
Your dogma, Irene, is for experience a very poor substitute indeed.
197 - Irene Athena
No one should have to work at a place with conditions like Tyson. If the smaller farms could afford to stay in business, then there would be more employment alternatives to giant agribusinesses. Too much OSHA will do that to an economy.
You worry that if integration were not enforced the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice. That's what the blacks and whites and "libs" and "cons" who are working together to support Ron Paul are doing, though.
The blacks whose opinions you are dismissing KNOW FIRST-HAND that the Civil Rights Act hasn't worked to change the attitudes of racists such as the management at the mega-corporation Tyson, the MD's in your hometown, 46% of Mississippi Republicans* (and 18% of Mississippi Democrats). Instead of hitching their wagons to the special-rights-for-blacks star, they are working to make life better for EVERYONE: restoring sane economic practices so that the jobs will come back; ending foreign wars that are waged to enrich and empower the elite, rather than to liberate the oppressed; eliminating the drug laws that cause so many nonviolent people to be incarcerated: 25% of the world's incarcerated population lives in US prisons, whereas only 4% of the world's entire population lives here.
***
*The generations for which racism was the norm are dying out, and the Mississippi poll is skewed because 66% of those surveyed were aged 46 and older. As recently as 1994, less than half of all Americans thought mixed marriage should be legal. Only 12 years later, in 2007, that number had increased to 75%. So don't be so doomish and gloomish, Glenn, about the vision of Martin Luther King's dream of racial harmony in the US being realized, laws or no laws.
198 - Glenn Contrarian
Irene -
I understand what you're trying to say - I really do - but what you're not getting is that we're NOT at the position where we can do what you think. So what if there's a few blacks who agree with Ron Paul? The VAST majority would not - and if you think otherwise, you need to talk to a few black people.
If you really want, we can go ahead and contact a few African-American organizations (whose existence is easily verifiable) and we can ask them what they think about Ron Paul's position that businesses should have the 'right' to discriminate. And you know what? For every single bona fide AA organization that you find that would agree with Ron Paul, I really don't think it's a stretch to say I could find twenty who would not.
One-to-twenty. Sound like a deal? I won't have immediate responses (I do have a life away from the computer) but I'm quite confident that I can deliver at least that much!
And when I hear somebody say "I can't be racist because I have X number of black friends or I've done X number of things for them", I give such statements absolutely no truck at all. I've seen too many racists be REAL good friends to the blacks...and then ten minutes later when the blacks are out of earshot, out comes the n-words.
So...no, Irene. We're NOT at that happy place you seem to think we are. It takes far more than the passing of one generation, as the race-hatred killing committed by these young white men makes clear. Maybe after three or four generations, but after the passing of only one generation? No.
BTW, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the war on drugs.
199 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
The "reformed criminal," is the (rare) exception that proves the rule, Glenn.
If that's so, then explain why the recidivism rates in Sweden, Canada, and Japan are each a little over half our own.
To me, this says that the problems aren't the felons - as you seem to imply - but the system that helps produce career felons.
200 - Gavin
This may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. It's gotcha journalism by someone that nobody cares about or reads.
First off, so what if racists support Ron Paul, did you write an article about the Black Panthers supporting Obama? Does this mean Obama hates white people?
Also, I refuse to label a man racist for quotations taken from larger samples about current events from 20 years ago.
And last, because I can't believe I wasted THIS much time typing. This seems to be the ONLY lie/flip-flop I hear about regarding RP . If this is the only one, with over a decade in congress, and multiple presidential bids, he is undercutting every other politician in the lie department by 99.999%.
Excellent try at journalism, perhaps next time you'll get the recognition you crave.
201 - Irene Athena
And who gets to decide what a "bona fide African American organization" is? You? I'm guessing the Atlanta Ron Paul meetup group wouldn't meet your requirements; otherwise, that single meeting and your 20-to-one bet would have you scampering off to find video of about 400 black individuals disagreeing with Ron Paul about business owners and discrimination. The word of Nelson Linder, former president of the NAACP of Austin ought to count for something, though. So I could let you off easy, Glenn: twenty verifiably (this means videos, right?) black people denouncing Ron Paul's vision of civil rights to the single voice of Nelson Linder. I might tighten the requirements even further and suggest that the quotes need to come from PRESIDENTS of local chapters of bona fide AA organizations, but I'm just too sweet to do that.
OH! But hold ON! I see Shelby Steele (author of the Loneliness of the Black Conservative) rolling his eyes at your suggestion. Glenn, you don't decide what's right based on how many people say it's right. I've posted six videos of black people who have decided to support Ron Paul. Go out and find videos of 120 blacks denouncing Paul if it makes you happy. It still won't make you right.
202 - Glenn Contrarian
To me, such an organization would be one that could be verified as being one that is made up wholly - or almost wholly - of African Americans. That would be the only requirement. It wouldn't matter what they believed or worshiped or ate or whatever, as long as they were African American. This is the only way I think we could get a fairly decent representation of the whole.
What do you think?
203 - Glenn Contrarian
Gavin -
As with all the others, I invite you to present ANY evidence that what the several newspapers published in 1996 concerning Ron Paul and his magazine were in any way wrong or inaccurate. That's all you gotta do...and if I'm as wrong or as stupid as you are sure that I am, this should be very easy for you to do, wouldn't it?
204 - Irene Athena
What do I think? I think you missed the entire point of #201.
And your answer to Gavin in #203 convinces me that you missed the point of #188, too. My conclusion: my contributions to this thread, if they were going to influence the thinking of anyone at all, have probably influenced anyone they were going to influence by now. Have a good week, Glenn.
205 - troll
while the signs are down there is still significant (economic - institutional - personally bigoted) racism and segregation throughout this country indicating a limited effective reach of federal coercion
maybe we really can't legislate morality as the saying goes
206 - roger nowosielski
The flip side of that, and on a positive note, may well be that it's a good thing that federal coercion is limited in reach.
In #187 I suggested that this kind of problem might present itself in a different light in a communal type of setting, but neither of the combatants took five to even consider.
Glenn worries that "if integration were not enforced the races would drift apart once more rather than coming together to face the common threats of crime, poverty, and prejudice."
I suppose it's a legitimate concern on face value at least. I'd argue, however, it's a misguided one. Why?
The races haven't come together to fight the very ills Glenn is concerned about, with federal legislation or without. So Glenn's methodology appears to consist of trying to attain a positive goal by prohibiting outward behavior by people who are against it. It is, in effect, akin to masking the real problem and real opposition to unified human action by pretending it's not there. From the standpoint of blacks, minorities, other peoples of color, gays, lesbians, etc -- all segments of society which are discriminated against and oppressed, I'd rather know who my enemies are, I'd rather know that I have enemies, instead of live in a make-believe la-la land where I and everybody else can keep on pretending we are a united people in purpose and objective.
No liberation struggle of any people has been won by somebody else taking a stand and making a fight on their behalf, and if Glenn thinks that the white America is about to set a precedent, he's suffering from an extreme case of illusion. The people themselves have to their their fight to the oppressors, there just is no other way.
207 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
The races haven't come together to fight the very ills Glenn is concerned about, with federal legislation or without.
You're becoming a true conservative, you know. Why? Not only are you now referring to President Obama as a 'pretender' (so I guess you're a birther now), but also because your statement above (and the diatribe that followed) makes it clear that because we haven't reached the goal YET, because everything isn't all better YET, well, that must mean it's all been a failure of grand proportions so let's just go back to the way things were.
That's the same kind of throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bath-water attitude I see in conservatives who want to get rid of the DOE, the EPA, Medicare, and the rest - it doesn't work absolutely perfectly, so get rid of it!
It's a process, Roger - a journey towards a place you and I will never see. But we HAVE made progress.
And here's something for you to think about - something that should set your currently-conservative brain on fire: most of the time, if something that is obviously evil is not declared wrong and illegal by the government (of whatever country), but is instead tolerated (or enshrined as a right) by that country, then that something evil which should have been rejected, shunned by the populace instead becomes the norm. This is especially true when it comes to populations that are not homogeneous.
Care to comment on that? Or is it beneath you to discuss an issue with someone who you believe is the greatest threat to democracy, who supports a "pretender to the throne"?
P.S. When you make statements like "greatest threat" and "pretender", I will go out of my way to rub your nose in it, as it were.
208 - roger nowosielski
You're missing the entire logic of the argument. No, the races haven't come together, legislation or no legislation. If the races had come together, there'd be no need for legislation. The blacks, women, gays, people of color are still being oppressed and discriminated against in spite of the letter of the law. Your approach is only masking the real problem, in spite of your best intentions.
And this isn't a conservative position but a revolutionary one.
As to my refusal to worship at the altar of the anointed one, it's my business, and I can't help if it offends you.
209 - Glenn Contrarian
Um, no, Roger - you're missing the point altogether. It's as if you see the problems we have now, decide that the Civil Rights Act has failed, and then take a giant step back towards those days.
Your failure, Roger, is that you do NOT know - and you're not even trying to discern - how very far we've come since then. The Civil Rights Act largely is what enabled us to come this far...and if we hadn't had the CRA, we would still have been stuck in the days of American apartheid.
You've lost your appreciation for history - for if you truly understood history, you'd easily see how very far we've come in race relations. Yeah, it's been filled with fits and starts. Yeah, it's been a bumpy road. But we HAVE made a great deal of progress. You'd know that already if you understood history half as well as you think you do.
And when it comes to your last crack about the "anointed one" - I'm not at all offended that you think so little of Obama (this IS politics, after all). It's just depressingly interesting to me that someone that I had once held to have above-average wisdom and intelligence has now seemingly become a birther, of all things!
You need to step way back and take a long, long look at yourself, that you can better see how far you've fallen. It has nothing to do with money or standard of living, but of what you've allowed to happen to yourself...
...and you've already seen in unquestionable terms that I'm not the only one who sees this change in you.
210 - roger nowosielski
I've got nothing to add to what I already said, Glenn. And thanks for the sermon. At least it's Sunday.
211 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
You need friends. You don't need buddies. Buddies are the ones who tell you what you want to hear. Friends are the ones who tell you what you need to hear. If you don't like that particular metric, bear in mind that what I just said is why I consider Clavos a friend, even if he doesn't think he is one.
212 - roger nowosielski
No problem, Glenn. We just don't see eye to eye on this. As I said, I understand your point of view, and unless you be willing to understand mine, there really is no common ground here. I know you mean well.
213 - Irene Athena
Ah, Cannonshop just referenced "Operation Fast and Furious" on another thread. While we were on the subject of letters...Well, we're off the subject of letters here, momentarily, aren't we?... but since LETTERS have been of so much interest to Glenn for so long a time, I thought I'd re-introduce the topic.
"Since the [Inspector General] is supposed to be conducting an independent inquiry, it seems odd the [Justice] Department would make a document request on behalf of that office," said [the LETTER of Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-R) to Attorney General Eric Holder on 8/17/11]. Grassley has, in the past, questioned the ability of the Justice Department's Inspector General to be fully independent in investigating the Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder requested the IG investigation after CBS News first broke news on the gunwalker case last February. President Obama has said that neither he nor Holder knew about or approved of the controversial gunwalking operation that spanned 14 months."
Seriously, Glenn. Though you and I have, and will likely in the future CONTINUE to butt heads about Ron Paul, he DOES stand alone among candidates in opposing the War on Drugs, which I very much appreciate your standing in opposition to as well. Maybe you and Cannonshop can have a conversation about that whole mess, Operation Fast and Furious, over here, comment #13
214 - Glenn Contrarian
Irene -
1 - There's every likelihood they didn't know about it. There's no way that the higher-ups will know everything that goes on in the several departments beneath - just like I sincerely doubt that Reagan knew that the aircraft carrier I was on hosted an air show for a Guatemalan (or was it Honduran) general who went home and took over his country the very next day.
That said, none of this excuses Obama - he's the guy in charge, and as I've said many, many times, the guy in charge gets all the credit, and all the blame.
2 - In my opinion, the War on Drugs, as terrible as it is in every respect, cannot be seen as so important that we would elect someone who would not only end the War on Drugs but also allow businesses to have the right to discriminate for pretty much any reason they chose.
Priorities, Irene. This would be like South Africa choosing an apartheid supporter so many years after rejecting apartheid, just because that apartheid supporter promises a more likely solution to South Africa's drug problem.
I will not take three steps back for one step forward.
215 - Irene Athena
Yes, priorities are the key, Glenn.
You can intensify your focus on holding Obama's feet to the fire (or the feet of the NEXT overtly or covertly neocon president) about the War on Drugs and about the lack of control over or even (ostensibly) knowledge of the illegal activities of all those federal agencies you are so fond of
*OR*
you can continue hyper-focusing on twenty-year old newsletters. I can assure you Glenn: Ron Paul is not out there campaigning and trying to raise popular awareness about issues no other candidate is talking about because he's itching to get into office and see "no blacks allowed" posters plastered all over the South.
I'm finally warming up to the idea of your interviewing folks from twenty "bona fide AA organizations." Ask them which choice causes them more consternation: the escalation of the War on Drugs that incarcerates so many of them, or the prospect of being denied entrance to establishments owned by bigots? I'd be interested in hearing what you come up with.
216 - Brian
It's a desperate smear attempt on the part of the establishment. If RP is a racist present a video proving it. Don't regurgitate 20 year old newspaper writings that have already been debunked countless times. So he has racists supporting him? He also has progressives, anarchists, and even Democrats supporting him. Just because people with a certain viewpoint endorse him does not mean he endorses their viewpoint. An ounce of common sense would tell you that.
217 - Jessica
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Since the KKK supports him too, does that make me a racist by association? Is it impossible to think that people that don't agree on social issues can agree on fiscal and foreign policy?
218 - Quinn
I'm sure the writers choice for president would be one of the paid for politicians in the George Soros, Koch brothers camp, lol. Great job they've done with the economy and making America safe since they've been pulling the strings, silly. (Guess who doesn't support Ron Paul George Soros and the Koch Brothers, you know the globalists hell bent on turning America into a fascist police state?)How stupid do you think we are? Ron Paul 2012, the only real choice for real Americans.
219 - MN
Request individuals to *think*, please.
.
Let's assume Ron Paul becomes the President; honestly speaking what are the chances that there will be any racially-prejudiced legislation or executive-orders? Heck, the guy wants to decrease government - he wants to CURB the power of the federal government. How could a weaker federal government issue diktats - let alone racially-prejudiced ones? It's just pure common-sense.
.
As the saying goes, "common sense is not so common", after all.
.
MN
NOTE: I'm a native of India - not white, black. My skin color is dark-brown. Lest, someone might think it's a white person supporting the KKK.
220 - daPetty
Proof Ron Paul is NO racist as he defends Martin Luther King, Jr. against the unconstitutional FBI investigations.
221 - Jack Myswag
Ron Paul admits to saying those things, which everybody thinks is racist. He just denies that they ARE racist things.
Just like every other child molester does it. The recent Penn State case comes to mind "No, I didn't think that seeing him naked with a little kid in showers, and hearing flapping sounds, meant that he was butt f@---ing the 10 year old, your honor ..."
222 - tan
So hate filled. Anyone have actual video proof that Ron Paul said these things or do we have to basically stick to summaries of non-cited articles? None of this sounds like Ron Paul to me and when I *read* that he didn't deny saying these stupid things, I have to think, "Don't believe everything you read". It's so sad the pro-establishment meme is so broadly believed. If THIS is your only exposure to Ron Paul... PLEASE listen to him first hand. Please choose your presidential candidate carefully; the Federal Reserve seems to have its hooks in several of them.
223 - Lloyd
This is the same unadulterated B.S. that comes up from the neoconservative right as well as the left every time Dr. Paul seeks political office. It's completely unfounded, and here's the proof.
224 - Charles Evans
The man record speaks for him. What else can one say? He has a right to his opinions, as repugnant as they may be. Futhermore, isn't this expected of a bigot?
225 - Mike
Ron Paul has come out and stated that he has a moral responsibility for what was written in those articles in his name. I do not believe Ron Paul is racist. Based on what I have seen from the media between the '08 election and now I would venture to guess that even if those statements were written by him (which I seriously doubt) they were taken out of context, not presented in their entirety or just flat out spun.
He consistently speaks out against racism and supports positions that I believe would help end race classifications in this country and recognize individual liberty. Ron Paul has publicly stated that MLK and Rosa Parks are two of his heroes....The actions I have witnessed do not support this man being a racist.