RoR: Forum

Why would anyone be offended that the topic was reported in the first place? Can anyone who voted for this option explain, please?

Post 1

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 12:34pm

Teresa, perhaps they were Ron Paul fanboys expressing nothing more than pseudo self-righteous indignation, an excuse to ignore something ugly about themselves for supporting a candidate they now know to be either a crackpot paranoid tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist racist scum-bag or someone complicit in allowing paranoid tin-foil hat conspiracy theory race baiting literature to generate revenue for his political aspirations.

Post 2

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 1:19pm

John, not to be completely rude here, but have you even read a single speech or book by Dr. Paul? He's not as crazy as you assume him to be. Much of what he talks about is more akin to an Austrian anarcho-capitalist than an Alex Jones clone. As for the claim of racism, it's already been explained that it was a former member of his past campaign staff that produced the newsletter article in question. And I point out *former* as the operative word here. So, before you go on a smear campaign against a man who probably is more consistent with his values than most, I'd check the facts first.

-- Brede

Post 3

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 1:52pm

Here's Ron Paul writing about racism:

One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to �help� any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.

Post 4

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 2:10pm

Bridget not to be rude, but I've looked into the facts probably more in depth than you have. I qualified my statement by saying either he believes the content of that newsletter OR he was complicit in allowing it to be distributed from his office. His claim of ignorance is highly improbable considering the facts.

As for the claim of racism, it's already been explained that it was a former member of his past campaign staff that produced the newsletter article in question. And I point out *former* as the operative word here.

Not according to a recent expose in Reason magazine that outed Ron Paul's ghostwriter to be Lew Rockwell whom he has been on Ron Paul's recent campaign trail and still has regular contact with. Ron Paul also regularly contributes to Lew Rockwell's site. Considering these newsletters that generated almost a million dollars for Ron Paul and went on for more than a decade, he can't honestly claim ignorance for this.

Post 5

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 2:54pm

Here's Ron Paul really writing up a storm about racism:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Post 6

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 3:46pm

I would have went with "I don't care about the newsletters". I chose the last choice as outlash against the poster of the poll who created such terrible options.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/04, 3:47pm)

Post 7

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 4:39pm

John, that so-called expose is what? Six months LATE. Six months, late. Do you know why? Because this came out six months prior to that article. It's not only old news, it's not even accurate news. Please, I want some reputable cross references to earlier articles about that newsletter before I take the word of an editor for any magazine (Reason or otherwise). So, again, it doesn't refute my points, and here's the kicker, it seems to be beating a dead horse of a topic. Maybe you like beating dead horses to make dead horse jam, but I'm not into that myself.

-- Brede

Post 8

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 6:25pm

Brede,

Post #7 immediately made me think of this post from JR.

For someone so passionate about property rights, Paul sure was sloppy about the use of his own name. I mean, where would those newsletter folks get the idea that Paul would support those ideas enough to pen his name to them? Did they just pull it out of their arse, or something? Paul was totally obscure to 95% of the population when those letters were published and distributed. Why would they use his name unless there was something to it?

Post 9

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 10:17pm

Well Bridget you are right the newsletter is old news. As Ron Paul in a previous campaign for a seat in the House of Representatives defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context." Only later did he change his story to it was a ghostwriter and he was ignorant of the content. Again, since you seem to want to ignore the facts, this business of race baiting and homophobic language went on for decades, from his office, with his name signed to the newsletters. Could Ron Paul be so dumb as to not know what leaves his office with his name attached to it and not know for more than a decade? Does the guy not read what he signs? I give the guy more credit to his intelligence than you do apparently.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/05, 2:35pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 2:27pm

Wow Ed, No one responding to your posts ?? Interesting... Sanctions to Brede and Ed for their clarity in the face of blind smearing and intellectual hypocrisy, which I will not respond to.

Post 11

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 3:24pm

OK, I'll answer #3 and #5 (I'd thought it was too obvious to need stating): all these quotes show is that Paul is a hypocrite on top of everything else the newsletter revelations have shown him to be.

Post 12

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 4:46pm

Gigi wrote:

Wow Ed, No one responding to your posts ?? Interesting... Sanctions to Brede and Ed for their clarity in the face of blind smearing and intellectual hypocrisy, which I will not respond to.

This is code for "I will evade and obfuscate reality because I can't deal with the fact I support a candidate who is either a racist or someone complicit in allowing racist literature to have his name attached to it"

Peter:

OK, I'll answer #3 and #5 (I'd thought it was too obvious to need stating): all these quotes show is that Paul is a hypocrite on top of everything else the newsletter revelations have shown him to be.

Agreed.

Post 13

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 5:38pm

I was thisclose to asking Ed if he simply thinks Paul had an honest change of heart. Normally when someone has a change of heart, they have no problem fessing up to prior errors. Even George Wallace did this. It's an extremely noble thing to do.

Instead, we have Ron Paul taking money from racists, getting support from racists, speaking to racists, writing for racists, and then acting as if he had nothing to do with some pretty horrible racist stuff back in the 80's when he was a big time no-body.

Curious.

Post 14

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 1:21pm

Teresa asked why anyone was offended "that the topic was reported" -- as if the WAY in which it was "reported" (a way which pre-villifies Ron Paul directly; or his supporters indirectly) doesn't matter. This is akin to asking someone why they're offended by the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

John A. offered this answer:

... to ignore something ugly about themselves for supporting a candidate they now know to be either ...

a crackpot paranoid tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist racist scum-bag

... or ...

someone complicit in allowing paranoid tin-foil hat conspiracy theory race baiting literature to generate revenue for his political aspirations.

The 3 assumptions here are that:

(1) if you're "offended," you're guilty
(2) Ron Paul supporters "know" that Paul is either an outright racist; or in bed with them for "political aspirations"
(3) Ron Paul's "political aspirations" -- if put into effect -- aren't the best politically-driven solution to actual racism that this country has ever known

John A. continued with:

Considering these newsletters that generated almost a million dollars for Ron Paul and went on for more than a decade, he can't honestly claim ignorance for this.

Translation:

Ron Paul, a man who officially denounces racism better than does any other contemporary politician (in a style on par with Rand's own published word on the matter), a man who's political aspirations -- if put into effect -- would mean the beginning of the end of racism in this country, knowingly sanctioned contradictory writings in his name (for his "aspirations"). It's just that he's lying about this NOW.

Teresa asked:

Paul was totally obscure to 95% of the population when those letters were published and distributed. Why would they use his name unless there was something to it?

BECAUSE he was totally obscure. You can't write something incendiary and put a "top-dog's" (such as the President's) name on it. If you want to get way with writing something incendiary, you require a name that's more obscure than that. In none of this does a guilty verdict for Ron Paul arise beyond reasonable doubt.

John A. continued:

As Ron Paul in a previous campaign for a seat in the House of Representatives defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context." Only later did he change his story to it was a ghostwriter and he was ignorant of the content.

Recap:
(premise 1) Ron Paul first defended something (that someone had written) as actually expressing his thought, but then inadvertently taken out of context (as part of a smear)
(premise 2) Ron Paul later said that something (that someone had written) was written by someone else and Ron Paul himself was unaware of the context
================
(conclusion) Therefore, Ron Paul always "knew" (he's just always been covering up -- even if his official position statements and his life-long held policies totally contradict the racism part of it).

I don't buy into that reasoning. I find it lacking in jurisprudence.

Peter Reidy jumped in:

OK, I'll answer #3 and #5 (I'd thought it was too obvious to need stating): all these quotes show is that Paul is a hypocrite on top of everything else the newsletter revelations have shown him to be.

Recap:
It's obvious that Ron Paul knowingly made a name for himself by getting in bed with racists. And if he officially denounces racism with the same style and fervor that Rand did, and officially champions policies that would mean the beginning of the end for racism in this country, well ... then that's just proof-positive that he's ALSO a hypocrite on top of all these other crimes!

Jesus Christ, I'm reminded of the Monty Python group deciding whether she really was a witch!

Teresa concluded:

I was this[ ]close to asking Ed if he simply thinks Paul had an honest change of heart.

But you didn't -- because you didn't NEED to, right? Why didn't it matter enough for you to ask, Teresa? Why would either of my 2 possible answers have matter to you enough?

You continued:

Normally when someone has a change of heart, they have no problem fessing up to prior errors. ... Instead, we have Ron Paul taking money from [insert "morally repugnant" people here] ... and then acting as if he had nothing to do with some pretty horrible racist stuff back in the 80's ...

And again the assumption is that he had to have had a "change of heart" -- because it's just too impossible that a man who has official position statements and political policies which are the best politically-driven anti-racism solution that this country has ever seen, couldn't have "known."

Now I see what kind of emotions that Bush-ites had when war detractors brought up the idea -- and the subsequent bumper-sticker stating -- "Bush knew." I am defending the other side of that kind of a debate now.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/07, 1:26pm)

Post 15

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 1:42pm

I'm not very interested in the issue of the newsletters. But I find this:

"...champions policies that would mean the beginning of the end for racism in this country..."

an interesting statement.

Racism, as an organized force, ended in this country about 40 years ago -- 20 years before Paul came to office -- and has been on an even steeper decline socially ever since. Sure there are still nutjobs and a fair number of moderately prejudiced people around. But on the whole, it's dead. (Not that much proof should be required, but you may observe that one of the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination did quite well in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere.)

So, is Paul's efforts here something we need to give him credit for?

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/07, 1:45pm)

Post 16

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 1:50pm

Ed:

The 3 assumptions here are that:

(1) if you're "offended," you're guilty

True. That assumption is correct. A Ron Paul supporter after hearing this news is guilty of either of the following things:

1) Supporting a candidate one now knows he was either a racist or complicit in allowing race-baiting literature to generate revenue for his political aspirations

2) Evasion for not closely looking at the news item to understand he was either a racist or guilty of allowing race-baiting literature to generate revenue for his political aspirations.

(2) Ron Paul supporters "know" that Paul is either an outright racist; or in bed with them for "political aspirations"

Or guilty of evasion. Of course we are only speaking of Ron Paul supporters who have heard this news, if some haven't their ignorance is not their fault but have yet to be enlightened to the situation. Please don't change the premise Ed.

(3) Ron Paul's "political aspirations" -- if put into effect -- aren't the best politically-driven solution to actual racism that this country has ever known

Except he is no longer the best qualified person to put such solutions into effect as we are left with the question of whether he is just a moral hypocrite (which he is on many other issues such as immigration, the separation of church and state, abortion, and pork-barrel spending) or had an honest change of heart and seeks redemption for allowing ugly racist comments to have his name attached to it. So far the former and not the latter seems to be more likely to be true as he has not apologized nor publicly outed the ghostwriter.

(premise 1) Ron Paul first defended something (that someone had written) as actually expressing his thought, but then inadvertently taken out of context (as part of a smear)
(premise 2) Ron Paul later said that something (that someone had written) was written by someone else and Ron Paul himself was unaware of the context
================
(conclusion) Therefore, Ron Paul always "knew" (he's just always been covering up -- even if his official position statements and his life-long held policies totally contradict the racism part of it).

I don't buy into that reasoning. I find it lacking in jurisprudence.

Of course you don't buy that reasoning if you ignore everything else Ed. You can certainly pick apart one syllogism of one piece of evidence and cry out it's not damning proof he knew, but doing that while ignoring the rest of the evidence is disingenuous. Let's look again at the evidence:

1) These series of newsletters with race-baiting literature continued for decades
2) Ron Paul has not denied those newsletters came from his office with his signature to them.
3) The ghostwriter has been outed as Lew Rockwell by former employees and libertarian staff of Ron Paul, Ron Paul's friend and associate to whom he still regularly has contact with and is on the campaign trail with them.
4) These newsletters generated more than a million dollars for him.

Either the man is a colossal moron for not knowing what was going on for decades and why he got a million dollars, which is a good enough reason alone to not vote for him, or he was complicit in permitting this literature to be in distribution with his name. If he was complicit in it, then either he is a racist, or he is a moral hypocrite for writing articles refuting racism.

And again the assumption is that he had to have had a "change of heart" -- because it's just too impossible that a man who has official position statements and political policies which are the best politically-driven anti-racism solution that this country has ever seen, couldn't have "known."

I suppose if he was a colossal moron he couldn't have known. Do you think he's that stupid Ed?

Post 17

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 3:20pm

Jeff,

The salient issue -- which was effectively avoided by your "professionalism" -- is the merit of Ron Paul's position statements and proposed public policies in relation to expected effects in the way people treat others.

You didn't say anything about that.

Ed

Post 18

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 4:17pm

"The salient issue -- which was effectively avoided by your "professionalism" -- is the merit of Ron Paul's position statements and proposed public policies in relation to expected effects in the way people treat others.

You didn't say anything about that." Ed.

Huh?

I've already said I don't care about the newsletters. As part of that, I don't care what Paul's position on racism is, or whether he meant it then, but doesn't now, whether he knew the newsletter's content, etc. I have plenty of other things that are sufficient (in my judgment) to evaluate Paul as someone I won't support.

I notice you didn't say anything about what I said (apart from a comment about my 'professionalism', which is opaque to me). But if you don't want to discuss what I said, that's your prerogative, of course. I acknowledge it was somewhat off the topic.

Post 19

Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 4:30pm