One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[California Terra Prime]

every single day Ron Paul seems more crazy to me.

[Cromarty]

He also supported a claim on the swiftness of African-Americans by saying that's because they snatch purses and get away with it.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ?mobile=nc

And that doesn't sound at least questionable to you?

Bullshit. Show me the proof that he has made or defended these statements.

Magic Johnson dying "because he violated moral laws."
AIDs sufferers "killers" and "darth vader" types. Janet Reno is a "murderer"
"Only 5% of blacks hold reasonable political views." "It's safe to assume that 95% of inner-city blacks are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Note this line also: Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
Ron Paul "approved every line" of the newsletters.
Ron Paul "always got to see the final product... He would proof it"
Paul on L.A. Riots 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

[Kaeshar]

Ron Paul should be sent to the Cambrian period (or maybe just the first half of the 19th century), thats how much of a fossil he is......

He's like your crazy old grandpa or something.

[Fr33domland]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

[Farnhamia]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8522512#p8522512

[Death Metal]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

We gave you the proof. You just completely refuse to acknowledge it, or that former Paul aide Renae Hathaway has spoken up on it. But, because he didn't mention it in his own words(except in a 1995 interview where he calls it a "business newsletter"), these don't "count" apparently.

Why am I not surprised?

[Fr33domland]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

We gave you the proof. You just completely refuse to acknowledge it, or that former Paul aide Renae Hathaway has spoken up on it. But, because he didn't mention it in his own words(except in a 1995 interview where he calls it a "business newsletter"), these don't "count" apparently.

Why am I not surprised?

Claims are not evidence, sorry. It's obvious that those who push this bullshit have other reasons for disliking Paul. The dudes been writing and making speeches for 30 years, and all you have to accuse him of racism is a few cherry picked quotes from a 20 year old newsletter. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither do millions of others.

Want some advice, argue his positions, and fuck off with the slander

[Death Metal]

BUT THIS IS FROM A PAUL AIDE! THIS IS NOT SOME RANDOM PERSON! SHE WAS WORKING WITH HIM DURING THIS TIME!

And some of these quotes are from interviews and articles with newspapers from the Texas area! These aren't just quotes from his newsletter!

You're not even READING the stuff we give you and it shows.

[Revolutopia]

We gave you the proof. You just completely refuse to acknowledge it, or that former Paul aide Renae Hathaway has spoken up on it. But, because he didn't mention it in his own words(except in a 1995 interview where he calls it a "business newsletter"), these don't "count" apparently.

Why am I not surprised?

Claims are not evidence, sorry. It's obvious that those who push this bullshit have other reasons for disliking Paul. The dudes been writing and making speeches for 30 years, and all you have to accuse him of racism is a few cherry picked quotes from a 20 year old newsletter. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither do millions of others.

Want some advice, argue his positions, and fuck off with the slander

I agree we should not look at his writings from 20 year old newsletters; however, I think we should be complete in this disregarding his past statements and views. Therefore, Paul supporters need to stop throwing out how he supposedly predicted the housing bubble to his opposition to the Patriot Act and Iraq War. In that, all those actions happened in the past thus we cannot be sure that Paul ever actually made those statements. Therefore, as we know have wiped out the entirety of Paul's past(because it is questionable if he ever made those statements/stances) we must discard Paul as the stances he takes are only part of a calculated effort to win over Young Voters. Thus, he is obviously an opportunist who is lacking in principles.

[Cromarty]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

Since you're incapable of thinking for yourself

Dallas Morning News, The (TX)

The Dallas Morning News

May 22, 1996
Candidate's comments on blacks questioned
Author: Catalina Camia; Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
Edition: HOME FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 8A
Dateline: WASHINGTON
Index Terms:
ELECTIONS '96
Estimated printed pages: 3
Article Text:
WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."
Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House.
An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles "Lefty" ! Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election. Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics.
"Many of his views are out on the fringe," Mr. Morris said. "But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves."
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."
No one answered calls to the Heritage Front, which lists only a hotline connected to a tape-recorded message in the Toronto telephone directory.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, urged Dr. Paul to apologize for his comments about blacks and asked Republicans to denounce their nominee.
"We need someone who can represent all the constituents of Texas, not someone who is negative or engages in stereotypes," Mr. Bledsoe said. "Someone who holds those views signals or indicates an inability to represent all constituents without regard to race, creed or color."
About 11 percent of the population in the 14th District, stretching from near Austin to the Gulf Coast, is black.
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid
misrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.
"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from the report."
Caption:
PHOTO(S): Dr. Ron Paul . . . says his comments are being taken out of context.
Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company
Record Number: DAL1568670

[Cromarty]

Still no proof that he made or defended those particular statements. Why am I not surprised?

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8522512#p8522512

Also this.

Feel like trying to defend your racist, homophobic hero?

[Fr33domland]

Claims are not evidence, sorry. It's obvious that those who push this bullshit have other reasons for disliking Paul. The dudes been writing and making speeches for 30 years, and all you have to accuse him of racism is a few cherry picked quotes from a 20 year old newsletter. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither do millions of others.

Want some advice, argue his positions, and fuck off with the slander

I agree we should not look at his writings from 20 year old newsletters; however, I think we should be complete in this disregarding his past statements and views. Therefore, Paul supporters need to stop throwing out how he supposedly predicted the housing bubble to his opposition to the Patriot Act and Iraq War. In that, all those actions happened in the past thus we cannot be sure that Paul ever actually made those statements. Therefore, as we know have wiped out the entirety of Paul's past(because it is questionable if he ever made those statements/stances) we must discard Paul as the stances he takes are only part of a calculated effort to win over Young Voters. Thus, he is obviously an opportunist who is lacking in principles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

There you go. Evidence. He predicted the housing bubble and opposed the Iraq war before they occurred. Now, find me evidence of him making derogatory comments or defending derogatory comments.

[Revolutopia]

I agree we should not look at his writings from 20 year old newsletters; however, I think we should be complete in this disregarding his past statements and views. Therefore, Paul supporters need to stop throwing out how he supposedly predicted the housing bubble to his opposition to the Patriot Act and Iraq War. In that, all those actions happened in the past thus we cannot be sure that Paul ever actually made those statements. Therefore, as we know have wiped out the entirety of Paul's past(because it is questionable if he ever made those statements/stances) we must discard Paul as the stances he takes are only part of a calculated effort to win over Young Voters. Thus, he is obviously an opportunist who is lacking in principles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

There you go. Evidence. He predicted the housing bubble and opposed the Iraq war before they occurred. Now, find me evidence of him making derogatory comments or defending derogatory comments.

That happened in the past, so it cannot count as evidence similar to how you refuse his newsletters as proof.

[Fr33domland]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=8522512#p8522512

Also this.

Feel like trying to defend your racist, homophobic hero?

Yeah I guess I should have made myself clear. Opinion pieces are not evidence.

[Revolutopia]

Also this.

Feel like trying to defend your racist, homophobic hero?

Yeah I guess I should have made myself clear. Opinion pieces are not evidence.

Saying those are all links to his newsletters and quotes from his staff saying he authorized what went on in his newsletters, they are not opinion pieces.

[Fr33domland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

There you go. Evidence. He predicted the housing bubble and opposed the Iraq war before they occurred. Now, find me evidence of him making derogatory comments or defending derogatory comments.

That happened in the past, so it cannot count as evidence similar to how you refuse his newsletters as proof.

The existence of the newsletter does not prove that he wrote them or that they even reflect his views. Contrary to video evidence, which speaks for itself.

Heres an interview from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

[Death Metal]

You have a very bizarre idea of what an opinion piece is if you think these are just that.

EDIT- Oh, I get it. It's all opinion pieces unless it's from Ron Paul himself (and before the newsletter even existed). That makes perfect sense.

Well, by perfect, I mean none.

[Fr33domland]

The racism claim is bogus.

[Revolutopia]

That happened in the past, so it cannot count as evidence similar to how you refuse his newsletters as proof.

The existence of the newsletter does not prove that he wrote them or that they even reflect his views. Contrary to video evidence, which speaks for itself.

Heres an interview from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

No the fact that he defended them in 1995 and his staff admits he authorized them shows they reflect his views, if you want us to ignore his negative past then his entire past should be discounted.

[Death Metal]

The racism claim is bogus.

No it's not. Your claim of opinion pieces, and citing something four years before the newsletters, is bogus.

[Revolutopia]

The racism claim is bogus.

No his claim of being a libertarian, Constitutionalist, and economic predictiveness is bogus.

[Fr33domland]

The existence of the newsletter does not prove that he wrote them or that they even reflect his views. Contrary to video evidence, which speaks for itself.

Heres an interview from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

No the fact that he defended them in 1995 and his staff admits he authorized them shows they reflect his views, if you want us to ignore his negative past then his entire past should be discounted.

That claim is still unproven. I don't see a negative past.

[Revolutopia]

No the fact that he defended them in 1995 and his staff admits he authorized them shows they reflect his views, if you want us to ignore his negative past then his entire past should be discounted.

That claim is still unproven. I don't see a negative past.

Actually, read the posts people have responded to your post with, in that they have linked you to articles of him defending them and his staff admitting his compliance.

[Death Metal]

That's because you only accept Paul's word as the truth.

"Fred shows things George published and signed. Ginny is a witness to George's approval. But George says it's false, therefore Fred and Ginny are lying"

[Grave_n_idle]

We gave you the proof. You just completely refuse to acknowledge it, or that former Paul aide Renae Hathaway has spoken up on it. But, because he didn't mention it in his own words(except in a 1995 interview where he calls it a "business newsletter"), these don't "count" apparently.

Why am I not surprised?

Claims are not evidence, sorry. It's obvious that those who push this bullshit have other reasons for disliking Paul. The dudes been writing and making speeches for 30 years, and all you have to accuse him of racism is a few cherry picked quotes from a 20 year old newsletter. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither do millions of others.

Want some advice, argue his positions, and fuck off with the slander

Ron Paul's own staff, and documents bearing his own name aren't good enough evidence for you?

There's just no arguing with that degree of denial.