It's more than that. It's repeated, defended, and reasserted statements/publications. Also protected because he refuses to release the full archives.
A single instance, perhaps not. Repeated, consistent publications, however...
yes it is.
if i know someone is doing illegal drugs... i will do eveything in my power to stop them... including "narking" on them.
It's more than that. It's repeated, defended, and reasserted statements/publications. Also protected because he refuses to release the full archives.
They're only "repeated" by idiots like you that are still clinging to "stories" that have been shown false long ago.
False? Really? Even Ron Paul acknowledged them and even defended them. So how can they be false? They are what they are and even the vile racist old piece of shit Ron Paul acknowledges their existence.
They exist, but they are not what you are trying to say.
They exist, but they are not what you are trying to say.
Face it. Ron Paul is almost certainly a racist.
You're the kind of piece of shit this country can do without. Sticking your nose in other people's business because you think it's your moral right, fuck you.
BWAHAHAHA, hell YOU apparently don't even believe the lies you are trying to sell. What a fucking retard.
BWAHAHAHA, hell YOU apparently don't even believe the lies you are trying to sell. What a fucking retard.
What I find strange is that you're trying to deny the existence of newsletters that undisputedly exist, which contain racist comments, which were published under Ron Paul's name, and which he himself has defended. I find it bizarre. You can pick on RabidMongoose all you want, but you're not convincing anyone of anything. To me this is just one more reason Ron Paul is not presently, and never will be, a viable Presidential candidate.
He was interviewed by Sean Hannity the other night, he asked him about it and he said he repudiates all of the racist things in their.
Can anyone point to one of his positions, something he said in one of his books, something he said in any speech, something he said on the floor of the house, something he said in any television or radio interview, that are anything close to being racist?
If not then I call bullshit on him being racist.
I'm sure he does repudiate them now, but it doesn't change the fact that he published them under his name. Presumably he meant them at the time. Would you have given Robert Byrd a pass on his past if he ran for president because he had apologized for his past behavior? (I know they were not bad to the same degree, but the basic principle is valid I think)
Yes but he is not saying that he wrote them and has now changed his mind, he is saying someone else wrote them. If it was in his book or in any speech that he gave then it would be different story for me. The stuff in the newsletters doesn't match anything else I've heard him say.
He was interviewed by Sean Hannity the other night, he asked him about it and he said he repudiates all of the racist things in their.
Can anyone point to one of his positions, something he said in one of his books, something he said in any speech, something he said on the floor of the house, something he said in any television or radio interview, that are anything close to being racist?
If not then I call bullshit on him being racist.
Because everything I've ever heard him say or do points to me believing he is quite certainly not.
The story that he didn't write them or didn't know who wrote them, etc really strains credulity. There were a number of different articles under his name in his papers over a five year period. Furthermore, when asked about those articles back in 1996 he did not deny that he had written them, he's only started doing that fairly recently. He previously claimed he was being quoted out of context, now he denies writing it at all. That doesn't pass the smell test for me.
I'd like to see where he has said that, not that I don't believe you, but I've just never seen him say that he wrote them.
Here's an article from Reason on the issue. It has dates and excerpts from newspaper articles.
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
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." [...]
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." [...]
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 denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
"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.
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.
Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, "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."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"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?" he wrote.
"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]
Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.
"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]
"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."
Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."
Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]
In his April 15, 1992, newsletter, Paul wrote about a person who had a beef with the IRS and "fired bombs through mortars" one night at an IRS building in California. Some federal property was damaged, but no one was injured, and the defendant was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
"Unfortunately (the defendant's) war against the IRS was not nearly as successful as Harry's War," wrote Paul, who wants to abolish the federal tax-collection agency. "Harry's War" was a movie about a fictional individual's battle against the IRS.
Sullivan said Morris "would rather sling mud at Ron Paul than talk about the issues or discuss how his own campaign is being almost completely financed by two liberal special interest groups: the trial lawyers and big labor."
These are the key articles.
These are the key articles.