Ron Paul on the defensive

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jan 11, 2008.

  1. (What a laugh, watching someone who caters to the John Birch Society crowd attempt to distance himself from his past. For nearly 2 decades he knew of the racist, anti Semitic homophobic, and white supremacist bile that was being printer in the newsletter with his name on the front. However, in his redneck district Texas, that was a political boon. Now that he is on the big stage, he is trying to make excuses for his lapse of moral character. I know the Paulites will defend this fanatical joker the way they blindly do. I also got a kick out of how he views the whole thing as some kind of "conspiracy" against him, as if he is the victim for not distancing himself from the Newsletter a long, long time know, before he wanted to be elected president.)

    Paul Calls Himself 'the Anti-Racist' in Responding to Bigotry Allegations

    January 10, 2008 10:09 PM

    ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, gave his first lengthy TV interview about those bigoted screeds from the early 1990s printed in a newsletter bearing the name "The Ron Paul Report" that were dug up by The New Republic and posted by that magazine Tuesday night (LINK).

    First, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he disavowed himself of the reports and admitted they are bigoted.

    "It's in there," Paul said. "It's bad. I recognize that and I had a moral responsibility. But that doesn’t mean you can indirectly charge me as being a racist."

    "Everybody knows I’m not involved in that kind of language," said Paul, before disavowing the writing in the reports, which he said he often did not read. (Which for you folks with a brain means that he did read the newsletters occasionally, and allowed them to continue with his name boldly on the title page.)

    "That's not my language. That's not my life," he said. "I honor and respect the civil right movement."

    Paul compared himself to a publisher of the reports and asked Blitzer if publishers always know every word in their magazines. (The publisher may not know every word, but when they find out what was in the magazine, if it is vile and violates their principles, they do something about it as soon as they find out. That is, if they have any moral character or are bothered by what was written in "their magazine." Hey Mr. RuPaul, where does the buck stop?)

    But Paul, who called himself the "anti-racist," did not just defend himself. He also argued that his libertarian ideals do the most for minorities in the two wars most affecting them now, pointing to the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.

    "In all wars, minorities suffer most," he said.

    (So he is against the war because of its impact on minority groups? What a complete lie.)

    "What other candidate will stand up and say, 'I will pardon all, black or white, anybody who is convicted of nonviolent drug acts?'" Paul asked Blitzer. "If you want to look for the real discrimination, its in the judicial system."

    (Complete strawman argument. Again he is making an argument that he is not a racist, and his stand on drugs has nothing at all to do with race. Man, this guy is lost.)

    "The real discrimination today has to do with the drug laws and the judicial system," he added.

    "What I defend is the principle of libertarianism, where we never see an individual belong to a group," Paul said.
    (Easily said by a white Christian guy who doesn't belong to a minority group. More BS.)

    He also argued that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. practiced libertarian ideals. (Total spin. MLK and Parks were supporters of freedom for all minority groups, fought for rights of minority groups, understood the need to protect such groups from the majority who abuse those groups simply because they have the economic or political power to do so...something Libertarians don't give a rat's ass about. MLK was called a communist by the right wingers and John Birchers, not a Libertarian.)

    "I’m not a racist," Paul said. "Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and non-violence. Libertarians are incapable of being racist because racism is a collectivist idea. You see people in groups. A civil libertarian like myself see everyone as an individual." (Apparently Paul isn't in touch with his "Libertarian" constituency and their view of Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, Jews, people living on Welfare and other groups of minorities and/or opression, etc.)

    Paul claimed his own support among African Americans is increasing and said someone (he did not say who) is trying to undermine that because he is the candidate that does the most to fight racism by not viewing people as part of a group. He did not offer data to prove his support among African Americans is growing. (Typical of Paul, to make statements lacking supporting evidence.)
  2. Ron Paul is the right's Dennis Kucinich.
  3. and i hear he's a total creationist moron to top it off... what d'u expect...

    how many people can read in texas anyway?
  4. my god people, listen to this man.... they are trying so hard to smear him and idiots like ZZZzzzzz run with the propaganda. the truth is he is the only one with real answers to help blacks and other minorities from the burden of corporate/govt miscreants:

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
  5. As usual, you have no real answers, just untried and untested Libertarian think tank nonsense.

    Minority groups will get no help from Paul. Oh yeah, there is some theory of a "trickle down" effect that would help minority groups, but the history of purely free enterprise and absence of government intervention to help minorities demonstrates that left unchecked, the majority of individuals who have the power to do so persecute and abuse minorities.

    It is the nature of power to be abused and to corrupt once it grows financially and politically such that it can dominate others.

    Paul's internal conflict between his Christian right religious dogma and his Libertarian dogma is equally an area where the RuPaulettes are blind.

  6. sorry.. your philosophy of welfare/warfare is the worst case scenario for blacks/minorities. the liberals are solely responsible for the grand decline of the black family.
  7. Z10 are you an anarchist?

    Did you ever muster up the courage and answer who you would like to be President?
  8. More strawman.

    Blaming liberals for the decline of the black family is the typical fare of a conservative, you can hear it 24/7 on all right wing hate talk radio...

  9. I have stated previously I would support that individual who said their first order of business would be to rescind all of Bush's executive orders, reduce the power of the presidency, etc.

    Paul has not done this. None of them have.

    Paul also talks about the position as if the presidency were some power seat to advance his ideas and his agenda.

    You agree with his agenda perhaps so you support him.

    It doesn't matter that much of his agenda is impossible to achieve without the work of congress behind him.

    Paul is not pulling people together, he is dividing them. The Paulites have a strong projection of "Us vs. Them." He is a polarizing figure. He is a regressive in his politics and impractical in his vague solutions.

    But you get to donate as much money as you like, and vote for whoever you want.

    "Did you ever muster up the courage and answer who you would like to be President?"

    Oh, you apparently see that there is courage in declaring for a presidential candidate on an anonymous message board?

    Laughable and truly pathetic at the same time what you see as courage.

  10. You are as spineless as a jellyfish.

    #10     Jan 11, 2008