Hahahaha ... you max out on the "bullshit-o-meter" here. The fact is that he has been ACCUSED by political opponents for being racist - from newsletters associated with him. These newsletters talked against crimes typical problems in areas and associated with ethnicity, as well as pointing out special interests and other ethnic groups - resulting in cries about anti-Semitism. What Ron Paul himself has said... that is far more difficult to pin on him - BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING. Doh!
Well that's true, if you ignore what he's written, then there's nothing at all. Or the other option, the guy's too incompetent to read his own mimeographed newsletters. And he has never voted against freedom except where he's voted against freedom. Not sure how that helps you, but given that Libertarians make backtwisting rationalizations part of their method of thought, it may make you feel better.
Has Ron Paul ever claimed that he has "never voted against freedom"... ? Or is it just you personally trying to make the point that you can "make a point when there is nothing?" Fabricating controversies, are you?
First post where I said that and then I would be happy to. You miss the point, which is that if you ignore a feature of Libertarian rationalization, where if one ignores the obvious then there's no evidence.
You said: "And he has never voted against freedom except where he's voted against freedom." I don't get your point if you are negating your "points" in your follow up posts... Trying to imply that there is a claim that Ron Paul never has voted against freedom - and that this is false. You are just stirring up dust from the ground and trying to convince me there is a sand storm -- all smoke and mirrors argumentation -- nothing there. ... and "if one ignores the obvious - then there's no evidence" -- what the hell are you trying to say? Are you trying to be insightful - based on nothing again? Can you complicate a little more - or just say what is your point? It's like you're paddling in circles here...
Alright, I'll dumb it down a little more: Here's bizarre Libertarian argument: If you ignore everything that Ron Paul has written under his name, then he hasn't written anything racist. Here's another bizarre Libertarian argument: If you only look at Ron Paul has said then he isn't a racist, despite what he's written. Why would a person reject evidence against Ron Paul or selectively exclude it because he hasn't said it versus having written it?