Quotes from Ron Paul's newsletter.

[bobalot]

So you would vote a Neo Nazi in, as long as his "policy" lined up with yours. Gotcha.

Well, he's voting for a racist or a person who knowingly uses racism to sell newsletters and push his politics.

[bobalot]

Here is a Bill from 1980 that Ron Paul introduced that would stop the removal of tax-exempt status for segregated schools (H.R.7955).

Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.

But...but...but... he's not racist! Maybe it was just ghost written.

[Serafina]

And where exactly do you get the idea that their "personal failings" won't affect their policy, especially when their "personal failings" are a matter of policy? (as opposed to, say, having an extramarital affair or such).

Incidentally, bobalot just showed how ridiculously dumb your position is - Ron Paul did in fact support racist policies. Gee, how shocking, a blatant racist supports racist policies.

[Alphawolf55]

Here is a Bill from 1980 that Ron Paul introduced that would stop the removal of tax-exempt status for segregated schools (H.R.7955).

Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.

But...but...but... he's not racist! Maybe it was just ghost written.

You don't understand, the Federal Government has no right to collect taxes from schools. This is just Dr. Paul being consistent!

[bobalot]

And where exactly do you get the idea that their "personal failings" won't affect their policy, especially when their "personal failings" are a matter of policy? (as opposed to, say, having an extramarital affair or such).

Incidentally, bobalot just showed how ridiculously dumb your position is - Ron Paul did in fact support racist policies. Gee, how shocking, a blatant racist supports racist policies.

It's obvious that Destructionator XIII and Ron Paul believe (as a matter of policy) that removing tax-exempt status from segregated schools is a unbearable form of Federal government oppression or something.

FIGHT THE POWER! FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF EXCLUDING BLACKS FROM OUR SCHOOLS!

[Alphawolf55]

Yes we understand that Foreign Policy is what's most important to you and to you Ron Paul is the only one who will end the constant wars even though the wars are winding down and the chance of us getting into another war are pretty slim for another decade which is after Ron Paul would be President.

[LaCroix]

I wouldn't care, since I vote based on policy platforms, not whether I personally like the guy or not.

Policy platforms presented by someone who made money with a newsletter full of lies?
Are you per chance interested in a nice bridge?

[MKSheppard]

It's obvious that after all these hundreds of posts, you still don't understand my basic position.

Your position is the same as precisely hundreds of other Ronulan retards on the internet. Isn't it funny how they all seem to hawk the same stuff, with little variation?

[Jim Raynor]

I read an opinion piece today that made a pretty good point. Remember that Jeremiah Wright crap that was such a big deal to conservatives in 2008? Obama was portrayed as some kind of racist Black Extremist because someone he was associated with said some stupid things. Ron Paul's newsletter printed things that were utterly despicable for years, and the media has mostly taken Paul at his word that he didn't really believe all of that.

Man, what a liberal bias the lamestream media has.

I love the peanut gallery comments. Great contribution, ++rep;

But, yeah, I'd vote for a racist or a Nazi or what-have-you, if I agreed with their public policy. Everybody has personal failings, but if they don't let that adversely impact their job, it's not a deal breaker.


The way you guys act, you would have disqualified LBJ right off the bat.

Things like being a racist "Nazi" do not exist in a vacuum. You're acting like a person's deep-seated beliefs don't affect their actions or judgment, and that you can just go by their "public policy." Stated public policy before someone is elected can also be a front.

And I think it'd look pretty fucking bad to other countries if America actually elected a neo-Nazi president. But no problem, he says he's better now!

[Simon_Jester]

And where exactly do you get the idea that their "personal failings" won't affect their policy, especially when their "personal failings" are a matter of policy? (as opposed to, say, having an extramarital affair or such).

Personally, I think a lot of problems with modern American democracy can be attributed to the decline of the idea of "virtue-" that an elected leader needs to have sufficient moral fiber that they can be trusted with personal responsibility for the well-being of the country.

To some extent, this is why extramarital affairs used to be scandals in the first place: the widespread belief that a man who would cheat on his wife would not hesitate to cheat on his country. Likewise, there was a time in America when it was a great scandal, one of the most damning bits of the Watergate scandal, that Richard Nixon had taken money from a corporation to get elected. Now, so many Americans accept that as normal, part of the price of doing business in politics- we expect our politicians to take bribes, even the ones who favor ending the system of bribes.

I think that's an important concept that I hope Americans start embracing once again- that if a politician is not personally virtuous, preferably at least a little more so than the average citizen, it really doesn't matter very much what platforms they espouse. They will lie about their intentions, they will take bribes to enact terrible laws, they will scheme and manipulate and trample on the Constitution.

And as a result of this, I would much rather have an honorable person in office who espouses (sane) policies I oppose than a dishonorable person who espouses policies I support. The honorable opponent is more likely to be someone I can work with in an emergency, and more likely to respond to a new problem appropriately.

[UnderAGreySky]

I think that's an important concept that I hope Americans start embracing once again- that if a politician is not personally virtuous, preferably at least a little more so than the average citizen, it really doesn't matter very much what platforms they espouse. They will lie about their intentions, they will take bribes to enact terrible laws, they will scheme and manipulate and trample on the Constitution.

Which is why it was partly horrifying to see someone like Newt hit the top of the opinion polls for a brief while. Twice-divorced, thrice-married borderline sociopath who signed fidelity pledges... It was quite funny to see his fall from the top, a lot of commentators said the voters realised "Oh, THAT Newt Gingrich?!". But how the heck did he even get to that height?

Does Desctructionator think that given a choice between two courses of action, the racist will always take the one that will hurt the race he hates (or hurt least the race he thinks supreme)? Paul could do that, and IMO would do that. And that's just one of many reasons he shouldn't be allowed to come within breathing distance of the presidency.

[Bakustra]

First of all, the only people on this Earth who can reasonably be considered free of racism (in the sense that people have been using the word) are the handful of isolated societies with highly restricted contact with the outside world.Americans specifically are racist as shit, and although most other wealthy nations aren't anywhere near as bad, they still have their neuroses of culture and mores. The phrasing of and implications behind "Ron Paul is a racist" and "racists will take action to outlaw black people" (namely, "racists are Other" and "racism is something that other people do") are thus arrogant, ignorant, and counter-productive.

In addition, "you'd vote for a Neo-Nazi if they had a platform you agreed with!!!!" is childish in so many ways that Idon't know where to begin.

[Simon_Jester]

Bakustra, "everyone is racist" is a really, really stupid argument for defending a man whose newsletter spent a decade making up fake claims against black people as part of a strategy for pandering to the far right.

[bobalot]

First of all, the only people on this Earth who can reasonably be considered free of racism (in the sense that people have been using the word) are the handful of isolated societies with highly restricted contact with the outside world.Americans specifically are racist as shit, and although most other wealthy nations aren't anywhere near as bad, they still have their neuroses of culture and mores. The phrasing of and implications behind "Ron Paul is a racist" and "racists will take action to outlaw black people" (namely, "racists are Other" and "racism is something that other people do") are thus arrogant, ignorant, and counter-productive.

In addition, "you'd vote for a Neo-Nazi if they had a platform you agreed with!!!!" is childish in so many ways that Idon't know where to begin.

Dude, he published racist content in his newsletters and tried to stop the Federal government removing tax-exempt status from schools that segregate. How much more do you actually need before you would call the guy a racist (or someone who openly panders to racists?)

The link to the actual Bill is above.

[Alphawolf55]

First of all, the only people on this Earth who can reasonably be considered free of racism (in the sense that people have been using the word) are the handful of isolated societies with highly restricted contact with the outside world.Americans specifically are racist as shit, and although most other wealthy nations aren't anywhere near as bad, they still have their neuroses of culture and mores. The phrasing of and implications behind "Ron Paul is a racist" and "racists will take action to outlaw black people" (namely, "racists are Other" and "racism is something that other people do") are thus arrogant, ignorant, and counter-productive..

You know what I'm calling bullshit on this whole idea that the US is one of the most racist places. Have you seen the French talk about Muslims or Algerians? Have you seen how Japan talks about Koreans or Koreans talk about the Japanese? Have you seen how the majority of Europeans talk about Gypsies?

[UnderAGreySky]

First of all, the only people on this Earth who can reasonably be considered free of racism (in the sense that people have been using the word) are the handful of isolated societies with highly restricted contact with the outside world.Americans specifically are racist as shit, and although most other wealthy nations aren't anywhere near as bad, they still have their neuroses of culture and mores. The phrasing of and implications behind "Ron Paul is a racist" and "racists will take action to outlaw black people" (namely, "racists are Other" and "racism is something that other people do") are thus arrogant, ignorant, and counter-productive.

This is BS. There is a measure of relativity that you've completely missed out on. There are those of us that send vile racist newsletters under our own names and then there are those that may have a naturally race-favouring feature in us (say, prefer to watch porn involving actors of only a certain skin colour), but who have no trouble overriding those instincts when it comes to work and public life.

It is only fair that I and others assume that people who can't control their feelings on this issue in public will do the same when it comes to their actions in power. Obviously RP didn't give a shit about black people so why would he not do bad stuff to them in power?

Americans may not be, on average, as aware of the rest of the world as educated Europeans - but that is probably because the US is a humongous country with an order of magnitude more area and population than a couple of European ones combined. Racist pricks are everywhere, and racism can't always be educated out of them.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, "everyone is racist" is a really, really stupid argument for defending a man whose newsletter spent a decade making up fake claims against black people as part of a strategy for pandering to the far right.

I have to say that your fragile little brains simply don't cut the mustard for discussion with such a binary outlook. I wasn't defending Paul, but attacking your methodology, which I consider to be grotesquely flawed.

[Mayabird]

Bakustra, "everyone is racist" is a really, really stupid argument for defending a man whose newsletter spent a decade making up fake claims against black people as part of a strategy for pandering to the far right.

I have to say that your fragile little brains simply don't cut the mustard for discussion with such a binary outlook. I wasn't defending Paul, but attacking your methodology, which I consider to be grotesquely flawed.

I have to say that your smug sense of superiority simply doesn't cut the mustard for discussion with such a simplistic outlook. I am not defending Paul, but attacking how you like to paint everybody with a broad brush so you can sit back and think about how much better than everyone else you are regardless of how useful it actually is to any discussion or any hope of having a realistic outcome to any sort of situation.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry you don't like my post, but I really don't see how treating responses as either pro-Paul or anti-Paul can be anything but binary, since there literally are only two options.But since your attempts at insult either rely on a vendetta of some sort (and certainly no member of the august moderating staff would behave so badly) or else conflating my opinions and positions with those of Destructionator, which is the very same mental defect I was castigating. Regardless, since I now know it's OK, I do believe I'll post streams of insults at you should I catch you correcting people.

[Simon_Jester]

Bakustra, "everyone is racist" is a really, really stupid argument for defending a man whose newsletter spent a decade making up fake claims against black people as part of a strategy for pandering to the far right.

I have to say that your fragile little brains simply don't cut the mustard for discussion with such a binary outlook. I wasn't defending Paul, but attacking your methodology, which I consider to be grotesquely flawed.

I don't really care about the hair-splitting differences you invent. It doesn't matter why you want me to think you said it. It's still a vapid attempt to muddy the issue with "everyone is racist, especially Americans, so why single out and criticize anyone in particular for being or enabling racism?"

That isn't even coherent. It's like saying "everybody speeds, so why bother worrying about traffic violations?" Or "everybody gets mad, so why bother worrying about assault and battery?" You're conflating wildly different levels of activity, and then pretending they're all equally common and therefore equally irrelevant to our assessment of a man.

For crying out loud, you're acting like a cartoonish parody of one of the sophists in Plato's dialogues, only you're not as good at it and nobody's paying you to do it.

[Bakustra]

That is not what I am saying. That is not it, not it at all. Instead, what I'm saying is that treating racism as a phenomenon of Other is bad in and of itself. It renders people incapable of really examining their beliefs because, to expand on H. L. Mencken, if only sons (and daughters) of bitches are racist, and nobody likes to think of themselves as sons (or daughters) of bitches, then nobody is going to consider themselves racist, even if they think that black people are genetically inferior.

This is using the colloquial definition of racism; the academic definition produces its own conclusions that you wouldn't like, but Destructionator is approaching those.

[Simon_Jester]

In that case, why is it even relevant?

The argument has been "Ron Paul's newsletter is full of bigotry and conspiracy theories, implying that he is either sharing those views, or supportive of others who do." How do you link to some attempt to 'otherize' Ron Paul (or bigots)?

Did you just jump into the thread to shout a fully generic warning against 'otherizing' groups of people who hold disagreeable opinions?

[Bakustra]

Simon, it's clear that you aren't even bothering to read my posts and that you are prejudicial of the social sciences. Give one good reaso why I should continue to beat my head against the infinite density of your fuckerhood.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That is not what I am saying. That is not it, not it at all. Instead, what I'm saying is that treating racism as a phenomenon of Other is bad in and of itself. It renders people incapable of really examining their beliefs because, to expand on H. L. Mencken, if only sons (and daughters) of bitches are racist, and nobody likes to think of themselves as sons (or daughters) of bitches, then nobody is going to consider themselves racist, even if they think that black people are
genetically inferior.

Are you sure you've even read anything by Mencken? This is a horrible bastardization of anything resembling his beliefs.

Furthermore, your logic is essentially a golden mean fallacy, or something approximating it. It just comes down to saying everybody is racist, so we can't discuss it at all.

[LaCroix]

2) "I'm going to actively discriminate against a bunch of people!" Ron Paul is allegedly against this, although he voted for supporting segreggation at schools and ran a racist newsletter for years.

I've put reality back into this statement.

He IS (or claims to be, but on this, I actually believe him) strictly against war, which is a positive, but if he were to act on it, Congress would stop him... After all, Paul holds the belief that only Congress, via statute (a formal declaration of war), may authorize U.S. participation in hostilities, and that "any exceptions to this general rule" should involve "military activities so minor and on such a small scale as hardly to be worth mentioning (- WIKIPEDIA ON RON PAUL)
So if Congress votes for the war, he would not stop it. Very nice backdoor, as Congress HAS voted on war in Irak and Afghanistan. Would they vote on war in Iran, he would comply, as well, as (see above) he believes that Congress is the highest authority in such cases.
Now honestly ask yourself, will a Republican Congress vote for a war?

He is for cutting spending (which I approve of), but as above, I believe Congress would stop him. They probably will 'let' him cut any spending that is beneficial for society at large, but once it gets to pork barrels, they will block him. After all, Congress makes the budget and the laws, right? (Also, history shows that debt reduction is more likely under a Democrat president than a Republican.)