CONFIRMED: Ron Paul is a racist... Game, set & match!

[radioguy]

Just minutes ago, John Gibson interviewed James Kirchek, liberal writer from the New Republic, and he has uncovered exactly why so many neo-Nazis and racists support Ron Paul... Because he's one of them.

Here is a clip of the entire interview (http://www.santiagosoceanservices.com/grim/gibson_kirchek.mp3)

I want to hear what you Ron Paul supporters here have to say about this.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Just minutes ago, John Gibson interviewed James Kirchek, liberal writer from the New Republic, and he has uncovered exactly why so many neo-Nazis and racists support Ron Paul... Because he's one of them.

Here is a clip of the entire interview (http://www.santiagosoceanservices.com/grim/gibson_kirchek.mp3)

I want to hear what you Ron Paul supporters here have to say about this.


When I see the proof in writing, not some "liberal" just saying so, then I'll give it more credence.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Listen to the clip, and you will learn where and when you can see your "proof in writing". That is of course, assuming that Ron Paul being a racist is a negative thing to you.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Listen to the clip, and you will learn where and when you can see your "proof in writing". That is of course, assuming that Ron Paul being a racist is a negative thing to you.


Isnt' it "Liberal is as Liberal does?"


Post the proof in writing, you listened. I got bored 3 minutes into it.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Isnt' it "Liberal is as Liberal does?"


Post the proof in writing, you listened. I got bored 3 minutes into it.


Lady Mod

I imagine hearing proof has now been found that the guy you've been defending and heaping praise upon, is in fact a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/racist, would bore you.

It's not like thats a bad thing to you... Right Lady Mod?

[Yirmeyahu]

radioguy,

Some guy making claims doesn't "confirm" anything. If you can support his claims with actual evidence, then you might have title to the claim that Paul being a "racist" is "confirmed".

This is hearsay.

[radioguy]

radioguy,

Some guy making claims doesn't "confirm" anything. If you can support his claims with actual evidence, then you might have title to the claim that Paul being a "racist" is "confirmed".

This is hearsay.

Yirmey, like I said to lady mod, if you listen to the clip, you will learn when and where you can see the documented evidence yourself. The man Gibson was interviewing James Kirchick, is the Assistant to the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic.

Unlike in her case, I believe finding out Paul is a racist, would be a negative to you, based on the one and only time the two of us were ever allies.

[hdmarketing]

I imagine hearing proof has now been found that the guy you've been defending and heaping praise upon, is in fact a white supremacist/neo-Nazi/racist, would bore you.

It's not like thats a bad thing to you... Right Lady Mod?

:lmao2: And RG, they have the Balls to call us "Neo Nazi's":lmao2:

:punchballs:

[Libraltarian]

I listened and I didn't hear proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did I even hear a preponderance of evidence which is the civil law standard. What I did hear was a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, some of which were funny.

I think it even funnier that Republicans and their official mouthpieces like Faux News and their self-annointed mouthpieces like radioguy here, start denouncing the right wing conspiracy freaks because for years official mouth pieces like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been promoting their agenda.

Well liberals have Rosie O'Donnell and conservatives have radioguy.

Whatever happened to that Big Republican Tent Reagan created? You know the one where the racist State's Rights conspiracy crowd, Bible thumping anti-abortion crowd and the Country Club fat cat Republicans all got along?

Like I posted in another thread, the Republicans are a fractured party and radioguy feeds it. I am so glad he's one of them.

[Cat slave]

Yes, the party is fractured, because the masquerading politicians who were
supposed to be conservative have proven to be nothing of the sort.

[Moby]

:lmao2: And RG, they have the Balls to call us "Neo Nazi's":lmao2:

:punchballs:
No. Some of you are called Neocons. That's different then Neo Nazis. Just because the Neo Nazi movement votes republican doesn't mean that most people don't understand the difference.

[radioguy]

:lmao2: And RG, they have the Balls to call us "Neo Nazi's":lmao2:

:punchballs:

I know it all too well... This backs up exactly what I said both here and at scam, about how lady mod supports racists. At least here, she can't ban me for using her own words against her.

[hdmarketing]

Like I posted in another thread, the Republicans are a fractured party and radioguy feeds it. I am so glad he's one of them.
Me too, it's good to have him on our side, he puts you people to shame.:thumbsup:

[radioguy]

No. Some of you are called Neocons. That's different then Neo Nazis. Just because the Neo Nazi movement votes republican doesn't mean that most people don't understand the difference.

Where were you during my war with lady mod, when she was lying her ass off and calling me a racist, when it's again apparent, she's the one that supports white supremacists and their racist views.

[hdmarketing]

Yes, the party is fractured, because the masquerading politicians who were
supposed to be conservative have proven to be nothing of the sort.

Yea you know people like McCain and Paul.

Those guys are so far left, they make Pelosi look center.:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

So i looked on the site, and I couldn't find anything he was talking about. I've never heard Ron Paul talk about any of this stuff. So until I see some actual documents, and not just some guy talking out his ass, i'll give it two thumbs down.

[radioguy]

Yea you know people like McCain and Paul.

Those guys are so far left, they make Pelosi look center.:lmao2:


I view political ideologies like a globe... Lets say the US was divided by the Mississippi river, with those who lean right on the east side of the river, and those who lean left on the west side. The far left liberals would be in China and the far right conservatives would be in Europe.

What happens for example, is if someone on the far left fringe in china continues even farther beyond the fringe, pretty soon they end up in Europe with the extreme conservatives on the right fringe. It works both way too.

[radioguy]

So i looked on the site, and I couldn't find anything he was talking about. I've never heard Ron Paul talk about any of this stuff. So until I see some actual documents, and not just some guy talking out his ass, i'll give it two thumbs down.


This will now be the third time I have had to say this, so I'll type it in big letters so I won't have to type it again...

Listen to the clip, and you will learn where and when you can see "proof in writing".

[Yirmeyahu]

Yirmey, like I said to lady mod, if you listen to the clip...

Well, radioguy, I did listen to the clip. The guy made a lot of claims. So like I said, until you can support his claims with actual evidence, not just hearsay, it's dishonest of you to say that it's been "confirmed" that Paul is a "racist".

I believe finding out Paul is a racist, would be a negative to you, based on the one and only time the two of us were ever allies.

You're absolutely right about that. But I've seen the accusation regularly, with very little to back it up. The best argument I've ever seen to support the claim was that Paul didn't return a contribution to a person who is apparently an outspoken white supremacist. But it's a logical fallacy to argue that his acceptance of a contribution from a racist means he is racist.

And if we are going to take as fact that candidates take on the personal flawed and/or condemnable characteristics of their contributors, then I would opine that Paul is the least of our worries. He's set records for fundraising, but it hasn't come from Enron or the ethanol industry or big oil or lawyers associations, etc. It's grassroots support.

What I did hear was a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations...

Precisely.

[Independent Harry]

This will now be the third time I have had to say this, so I'll type it in big letters so I won't have to type it again...

Listen to the clip, and you will learn where and when you can see "proof in writing".

So yeah I listened to the clip, went to TNR.com and couldn't find any of the posted information... which is what I already said.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Where were you during my war with lady mod, when she was lying her ass off and calling me a racist, when it's again apparent, she's the one that supports white supremacists and their racist views.


You have several here who HAVE listened completely to the clip and they didn't find the so called evidence you claim is there. Yet, because I am bored 3 minutes into it, pegging it as heresay early on that makes me a racist?

YOU listened to the clip yet are unable to post the proof to back your claim. You are a liar and trouble maker. Not to mention an earth disturber and gossip.

You are the one who doesn't like blacks and prefers segregation RG. That was in writing, in your words. You are much more qualified to be called a racist than I will ever be.


:lmao2:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I know it all too well... This backs up exactly what I said both here and at scam, about how lady mod supports racists. At least here, she can't ban me for using her own words against her.

By the way, you better NOT even start whining about being attacked on this thread you coward, this would, by your own definition, be considered the first attack. And the gloves have come off.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

So yeah I listened to the clip, went to TNR.com and couldn't find any of the posted information... which is what I already said.

Harry, when and where the documents will be available, is in the audio clip.

YOU listened to the clip yet are unable to post the proof to back your claim. You are a liar and trouble maker.

I love how you so freely call me a liar, when the information is right there in the clip.

[Independent Harry]

Harry, when and where the documents will be available, is in the audio clip.



I love how you so freely call me a liar, when the information is right there in the clip.

when was the clip created, i doubt it was today...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I love how you so freely call me a liar, when the information is right there in the clip.

No more accurate word to describe you. It's what you have done, lied. It's what you are then. A "Liar".

Apparently the info must be in secret code, only you have deciphered it. Or else it's the "voices" in your head telling you.

You totally discredit yourself.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

You have several here who HAVE listened completely to the clip and they didn't find the so called evidence you claim is there. Yet, because I am bored 3 minutes into it, pegging it as heresay early on that makes me a racist?

I pegged you as a racist supporter a long time ago and your own words proved it. Remember how you jumped up to defend white supremacist Hal Turner? Remember how you refused to denounce the words of a certain liberal, anti-Semitic, racist who called for the genocide of all the Jews in Israel?

Maybe you're right though... Maybe it's perfectly natural for someone who is not a racist supporter (as you claim), to have no interest at all in finding out if the presidential candidate they have defended and supported, is actually a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, piece of human filth.

I mean, just because a person endorses and defends racists (as you have done on more than one occasion), doesn't mean that that person is a racist, or a racist supporter... Oops... better scratch that last one.

You are the one who doesn't like blacks and prefers segregation RG. That was in writing, in your words. You are much more qualified to be called a racist than I will ever be.lmao2:

That would make me a real piece of shit... If it were only true.

You are the most predictable liberal liar I have ever known. As soon as I expose who and what you are, and use your own words to do it, you immediately turn it around and accuse me of the same thing.

The proof of you supporting racists is part of the public archives at scam, just as the things you claim make me a "black hater" and "segregationist" are not.

this would, by your own definition, be considered the first attack. And the gloves have come off.

No, it wouldn't... Pointing out your lack of interest in finding out if the guy you have supported for president, is actually a racist, is not an attack... Especially considering your track record of not only defending racists such as Hal Turner, but in your refusal to denounce someones call for the genocide of the people of Israel.

Highlighting your inaction toward racist posts, and your past actions defending racists, is not an attack Lady mod... It's your indisputable history.

[Independent Harry]

I pegged you as a racist supporter a long time ago and your own words proved it. Remember how you jumped up to defend white supremacist Hal Turner? Remember how you refused to denounce the words of a certain liberal, anti-Semitic, racist who called for the genocide of all the Jews in Israel?

Maybe you're right though... Maybe it's perfectly natural for someone who is not a racist supporter (as you claim), to have no interest at all in finding out if the presidential candidate they have defended and supported, is actually a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, piece of human filth.

I mean, just because a person endorses and defends racists (as you have done on more than one occasion), doesn't mean that that person is a racist, or a racist supporter... Oops... better scratch that last one.



That would make me a real piece of shit... If it were only true.

You are the most predictable liberal liar I have ever known. As soon as I expose who and what you are, and use your own words to do it, you immediately turn it around and accuse me of the same thing.

The proof of you supporting racists is part of the public archives at scam, just as the things you claim make me a "black hater" and "segregationist" are not.



No, it wouldn't... Pointing out your lack of interest in finding out if the guy you have supported for president, is actually a racist, is not an attack... Especially considering your track record of not only defending racists such as Hal Turner, but in your refusal to denounce someones call for the genocide of the people of Israel.

Highlighting your inaction toward racist posts, and your past actions defending racists, is not an attack Lady mod... It's your indisputable history.

so you didnt answer my question, was that interview done today?

[radioguy]

when was the clip created, i doubt it was today...

Harry, my initial post stated:

Just minutes ago, John Gibson interviewed James Kirchek, liberal writer from the New Republic, and he has uncovered exactly why so many neo-Nazis and racists support Ron Paul... Because he's one of them.

Here is a clip of the entire interview (http://www.santiagosoceanservices.com/grim/gibson_kirchek.mp3)

I want to hear what you Ron Paul supporters here have to say about this.

I posted it here about 3 hours ago, which was about 10 minutes after the live radio interview took place.

[Yirmeyahu]

So yeah I listened to the clip, went to TNR.com and couldn't find any of the posted information... which is what I already said.

Ditto. I listened to the clip. I went to TNR. I looked at all the links. I didn't want to spend my valuable time searching the website for this specific information.

So, radioguy, when they post substantiating documentation of these claims, I'm sure you'll let us know and provide the link(s) for us.

Until then, it's mere hearsay, and potentially slander.

And you called Paul a "Nazi", which is nonsense. But would you say that falls under your qualifications for what we could call "Paul bashing"?

[radioguy]

Oh, and by the way Harry, don't take what I'm saying to lady mod as a slight on you. I'm not directing any of that to anyone else but her.

I can see you have a genuine interest in finding out if this is true or not, as most people would in your position and I feel for you. I'll tell you right now Harry, that if it turns out to be credible (as I believe it to be) and this sours your view of the man his candidacy, I'm not going to bust your chops over it.

[Moby]

What's the big deal?

1. So far there's nothing but rumors being spread. That in itself is a terrible thing but listening to the rumors is almost as bad.
2. Even if it turns out that he is a racist then that doesn't mean that people were supporting racism or anything else. They were supporting a man that was hiding something.

Now if he is proven to be a racist then people need to rethink their support. Claiming that his supports support racism is more hysteria that the neoconservative media will promote.

Just because Mark Foley turned out to be a pedophile and that Dennis Hastert, the leading Republican and Speaker Of The House knew about it doesn't mean that republican supporters supported pedophiles. Does it?

[radioguy]

And you called Paul a "Nazi", which is nonsense. But would you say that falls under your qualifications for what we could call "Paul bashing"?

Ok... So I exaggerated a bit on that one... Guilty.

[radioguy]

What's the big deal?

1. So far there's nothing but rumors being spread. That in itself is a terrible thing but listening to the rumors is almost as bad.

It's more than rumors Moby... The guy from TNR, has what sounds to me like boxes of material authored by Ron Paul, which he read various excerpts from on John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio show. He also announced when and where he was going to make these documents public.

2. Even if it turns out that he is a racist then that doesn't mean that people were supporting racism or anything else. They were supporting a man that was hiding something.

True. I already told Harry that I wasn't going to bust his chops over this if it is verified and it changed his outlook on the man.

Of the 4 people who have voiced approval for Paul and responded to this thread (not including you), 3 listened to the entire clip and showed some level of concern about these allegations, as one would expect. The one exception to this, was Lady Mod.

You could make the case that her not listening to the clip, doesn't necessarily indicate that the racist aspect of Paul is irrelevant to her support for him, if it weren't for a few things. First, the reason she didn't listen to it all, was because she found it boring. Boring? Are you kidding me? Second, she indicated she wanted physical proof, so I told her that information was contained in the clip, and still she had no interest.

I don't know about you Moby, but if that clip was about the candidate I supported, I would sure as hell want to listen to it, especially if it told me how I could see the proof myself. In her case though, the lack of interest she displayed wasn't surprising considering her history of dealing with racists and racist posts.

I would never use an incident like this to brand the people who had supported him (the key word being had) "racists". That's not what I'm all about.

[disrupter]

The corporate GOP only supports 'closet' racism,
without which they would not have won as many elections over the last few decades.

I am a racist.

Every cell in my body has a particular genetic pattern.
I will not apologize for that, nor do i every want to see that changed, unless i am found to have some genetic disease. & even then playing around with one's genetic code approaches insanity.

My mother & Father are who they were & if they suddenly changed their race it would be very odd, & uncomfortable to me. I love my family more than anyone else.

What i am not is ignorant of my own ignorance.
Some claim there is no such thing as race. I would politely disagree.
But i know that race is very subtle & complex & in light of our mutual humanity it approaches non-existence. It is beyond our current comprehension or understanding.

I am not neurotic. Well at least about that, i have plenty of other neuroses to spare.
I don't feel i have to 'prove' i am not racist.
If someone sees me crudely crossing some line they can call me on it.
I attempt to be civil & civilized to those who are civil to me.
If you are uncivil you are less than the dust in the wind to me & will be treated accordingly.

Humanities gene pool is kind of thin anyway we need to keep it as deep & robust as possible, for emergency survival adaptability of the species.

Considering the paucity of intellect of our species, banning any arbitrary sector borders on suicidally stupid.

I also conversely realize that eccentric genetic traits may be good to parse out & re-inforce so that some advantageous traits can be developed in our species as well. Although we are getting nearer to a time when we may be able to successfully genetically engineer new traits. That should always be done with very great caution. Pride always goes before a fall.

I am racist.
Everyone is racist.
So we are all equal in that.
Now let us civilly get past it, on to things that threaten & things that inspire our species.

[disrupter]

I am racist & i have barely any idea of what that really means, but it doesn't bother me. I can't imagine it is a big deal to any reasonable intellect.

[Americanadian]

What I find especially humorous with this particular thread is how easily Radiogoy is convinced about the allegations presented by the esteemed gentleman in the video. Yet, when the same allegations are presented pertaining to various other subjects such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, the possibility of 9/11 being an 'inside job', etc, then the roles are reversed and Radiogoy then shrieks with indignation that there is an absence of proof. PROVE IT!!! PROVE IT!!! Bush didn't Lie!! PROVE HE LIED!!!

LOL....ya gotta love the right wing fascist chicken fuckers for their blazing hypocrisy. At least they keep the laughs rolling, at their expense of course. :lmao2:

[radioguy]

You know what I find humorous Americanadian... That you chime in here and attack me for believing what was presented, when you didn't even have the guts to click the link and review the evidence yourself.

If you had, you would have known that it was an audio, not video clip.

What does it matter anyway... It's not as if finding out the guy is a racist will lower your opinion of the man. :(

[Yirmeyahu]

radioguy,

If/When they post the documentation to support his claims at TNR, please let us know.

We'll all be waiting in suspense.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

No, it wouldn't... Pointing out your lack of interest in finding out if the guy you have supported for president, is actually a racist, is not an attack... Especially considering your track record of not only defending racists such as Hal Turner, but in your refusal to denounce someones call for the genocide of the people of Israel.

Highlighting your inaction toward racist posts, and your past actions defending racists, is not an attack Lady mod... It's your indisputable history.

Gee, that means your support for the terrorist behavior of our president must make you a terrorist and enemy of all Americans. Just going by your own logic Cupcake.

Nothing you claim makes me a racist except in your own sick mind and that's an indisputable fact we are ALL aware of here.



Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Gee, that means your support for the terrorist behavior of our president must make you a terrorist and enemy of all Americans. Just going by your own logic Cupcake.

Nothing you claim makes me a racist except in your own sick mind and that's an indisputable fact we are ALL aware of here.



Lady Mod

OK, I'm clear now on your beliefs...

You view our president as a terrorist... Therefore, 50 million Americans are terrorist supporters.

That still doesn't change the fact, that the news you might be supporting a racist to be America's next president, not only bores you, but isn't even worth 5 minutes of your time to find out if it's true or not.

Believe me Lady mod, everyone here understands exactly what you embrace and who you consider to be the enemy. You make that very clear.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

OK, I'm clear now on your beliefs...

You view our president as a terrorist... Therefore, 50 million Americans are terrorist supporters.

Yes and every one of you should be deported to Iraq or placed on an island in the middle of the Pacific where none of you can do anyone any more harm. There are 303,193,983 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) people in the United States. We won't miss you.

That still doesn't change the fact, that the news you might be supporting a racist to be America's next president, not only bores you, but isn't even worth 5 minutes of your time to find out if it's true or not.

Believe me Lady mod, everyone here understands exactly what you embrace and who you consider to be the enemy. You make that very clear.

Apparently it wasn't even worth everyone else's ten minutes worth of their time but you only find fault with the fact that I pegged your little audio as unworthy of my time 3 minutes into it. It was very clear from the start of it where it was going and that it wasn't worth listening to.

And Cupcake, I'm not concerned about YOUR opinion. Your opinion hasn't been accurate or worth concerning myself over for years. And given the atmosphere around here, I think most would agree with that.


LOL

[Moby]

It's more than rumors Moby... The guy from TNR, has what sounds to me like boxes of material authored by Ron Paul, which he read various excerpts from on John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio show. He also announced when and where he was going to make these documents public.
No matter how much this guy claims he has on Paul it's till just a rumor. There was a time in the USA when people were innocent until proven guilty. The media has made sure that's no longer the case but I still consider this nothing more then a rumor until there is more information.

True. I already told Harry that I wasn't going to bust his chops over this if it is verified and it changed his outlook on the man.And that's a good stance.

Of the 4 people who have voiced approval for Paul and responded to this thread (not including you), 3 listened to the entire clip and showed some level of concern about these allegations, as one would expect. The one exception to this, was Lady Mod.I'm not a Paul supporter. I do think that Paul is good for the political process because he doesn't use the same preprogrammed phrases that other candidates are using and there for makes people think instead of just staying on autopilot.

You could make the case that her not listening to the clip, doesn't necessarily indicate that the racist aspect of Paul is irrelevant to her support for him, if it weren't for a few things.
It takes a lot to get me to waste time listening to a clip on my computer and it would take far more then someone announcing a rumor. I don't think there's a case to be made here.

If you linked to one of many written articles that had proof of Paul's racism and people refused to read it then you might be on to something. Simply refusing to listen some guy making unfounded claims means nothing. I refused to listen to it for many reasons and none of them have to do with ignoring the issue.

[Independent Harry]

Still nothing on TNR.com, I'm waiting patiently...

[disrupter]

racism is irrelevant,
either evolution created it or it didn't.

ignorance DOES matter.

Acting on a pretense of knowledge is risky bordering on disastrous.

Might as well act on voodoo,
oops, most religions already do that don't they.

[radioguy]

racism is irrelevant,
either evolution created it or it didn't.

ignorance DOES matter.

Acting on a pretense of knowledge is risky bordering on disastrous.

Might as well act on voodoo,
oops, most religions already do that don't they.

Does anyone else get the feeling that disrupter is setting the stage, so when and if these Newsletters are published and verified, he can still justify his support for the guy?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Does anyone else get the feeling that disrupter is setting the stage, so when and if these Newsletters are published and verified, he can still justify his support for the guy?

Nope, he's insulting you. You just aren't smart enough to realize it.



:lmao2:

And Bush is a racist, as evidenced by the Katrina disaster. Which by the way, would make you a racist for supporting him. Because we have never seen you denounce him for waiting 3 damned days BEFORE he bothered to do anything about it. :D

http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=2480

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bushairmanny.jpg

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bushatwindow1-1.jpg


.

[disrupter]

Setting the stage. LOL

'putting on my top hat'
'tying up my white tie'
'dusting off my tails'

note: i have two tails.
'Two Tails of a City' by a. k. a. disrupter

There's no business like snow business it the only business i know,

me & those NeoNut bags.

[disrupter]

insulting? i thought it was another of my awesome, amazingly insightful revelations.

no small ego here.

'tink'

oops, i broke

[disrupter]

I want to be president so i can fly over everyone & take a dump on them from my own 747 too.

awesome, man,

lol.

damn that felt good.

[disrupter]

newsletters?

what newsletters?

there are newletters? no one said anything about newsletters.

we don't need no stinking newsletters.

[radioguy]

The lengths you liberals will go, to try and avoid any realities you don't want to face, although amazing at times, is never the less a demonstration of just how totally consumed by the hatred and false beliefs that are the foundation of the ideological beliefs you embrace.

The Story: Ron Paul's a racist
Lady Mod: ummm, ummm, So is Bush!

Nice comeback. :lmao2:

[disrupter]

Why don't you say the one thing that makes sense,

stupid claims about race are exactly that, stupid.

subtle ignorance is also a problem, but great care has to be exercised there before everyone jumps off the deep end about it.

[radioguy]

Well, since we are stuck waiting... How's about a little preview for the benefit of those who (wink wink) didn't manage to hear the interview.

In 1991 during the Adams Morgan riots, which took place in a black urban neighborhood in Washington DC, Ron Paul wrote a story in his newsletter about it, and refereed to blacks as "Animals". In fact, he even titled the story "Animals Take Over The DC Zoo". The Washington Zoo is located in Adams Morgan.

Ron Paul also gave his opinion of Martin Luther King in his newsletters. He called him a "Homosexual pedophile", but it gets even better... Hold on to your seats people... When Al Sharpton and Lenora Fulani got together to help her get elected Mayor of NYC back in 1990, she said in a speech "We want to rename New York City, Martin Luther King City". Paul replied to that by saying "I think we should call it 'Welfaria', 'Zooville', 'Rapetown', 'Dirtburg', or 'Lazy-opolis'".

How's that for a little teaser?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

January-February 2003
Black/Red View
Bush's political racism (http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2003/Jan-Feb/brv_Jan03.htm)
by John Alan

Recently, the Bush administration called upon the Supreme Court to replace race-based affirmative action in college and university admissions with a "race neutral'' policy which would admit only the top 10% of students regardless of their race or ethnic origin. According to President Bush, this "race neutral" admission would end the quota system that "unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students."

What is ironic about Bush's desire to make affirmative action "race neutral" is that affirmative action at its beginning was considered by many whites a form of reverse discrimination, with less qualified Blacks taking jobs away from them. Many Republican candidates exploited that misleading concept to win elections, promising to look into affirmative action abuses.

================================================

Here's a goody:


US presidential campaign: George W. Bush speaks at racist university (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/bush-f08.shtml)
By Patrick Martin
8 February 2000


The appearance by George W. Bush last Wednesday at Bob Jones University, in Greenville, South Carolina, is an event which deserves more attention and analysis than the perfunctory reports provided by the American media. The leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, endorsed by the vast majority of Republican senators, governors and congressmen, spoke before several thousand students at an institution which is a bastion of Christian fundamentalist bigotry.

Founded by Baptist evangelist Bob Jones Sr. in 1927, who was succeeded by Bob Jones Jr. and now Bob Jones III, the university has been notorious for decades for providing a Biblical sanction for old-fashioned Southern racism. Until 1971 the school refused to admit blacks; for a number of years after that it would only admit married blacks, in order to forestall the possibility of interracial relationships.

.........

Published on Sunday, February 6, 2000 in the St. Petersburg Times
GW Bush's Tolerating Racist Behavior And Philosophy Is More Contemptible Than All Of Bill Clinton's Sins Combined (http://www.commondreams.org/views/020600-102.htm)
by Bill Maxwell

There he goes again.

Leave it up to George W. Bush to weasel his way out of those ethical jams, especially those involving issues of race.

Last month, the South Carolina NAACP asked the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate to state his position concerning the Confederate flag atop the South Carolina Capitol. His answer? Bush said the people of South Carolina should make their own decision about flying the Confederate flag in Columbia.

No good.

Bush is running for president of the United States, not as a South Carolina state representative. He should have more to say about the Confederate banner, a symbol of human subjugation, racism and death. During a recent stop at CBS' Face the Nation, Bush was challenged to identify the moral issue the president should take a stand on even if the issue involves states' rights.

"Bigotry and racism and prejudice," Bush said.

Bush does not have the courage of his convictions. He did not -- and has not -- taken a stand on the Confederate flag. Although the flag flap is still raging, Bush waltzed into South Carolina the other day and showed that he has trouble standing up to bigotry and racism and prejudice. Are these the kind of sentiments the governor can tolerate?

Here is what happened: Bush -- Mr. Compassionate Conservative -- spoke at Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. Bob Jones represents everything that was and is bad about Dixie. Founded in 1927 by the Rev. Bob Jones Sr., an unreconstructed racist, the university admitted blacks for the first time ever in the 1970s only after the federal government yanked its tax-exempt status.


.

[radioguy]

Again with your pathetic attempts to change the topic of a thread.

Why don't you just plug your ears and say "la la la la la la la..." like you usually do when faced with things that you aren't capable of dealing with?

[Independent Harry]

Well, since we are stuck waiting... How's about a little preview for the benefit of those who (wink wink) didn't manage to hear the interview.

In 1991 during the Adams Morgan riots, which took place in a black urban neighborhood in Washington DC, Ron Paul wrote a story in his newsletter about it, and refereed to blacks as "Animals". In fact, he even titled the story "Animals Take Over The DC Zoo". The Washington Zoo is located in Adams Morgan.

Ron Paul also gave his opinion of Martin Luther King in his newsletters. He called him a "Homosexual pedophile", but it gets even better... Hold on to your seats people... When Al Sharpton and Lenora Fulani got together to help her get elected Mayor of NYC back in 1990, she said in a speech "We want to rename New York City, Martin Luther King City". Paul replied to that by saying "I think we should call it 'Welfaria', 'Zooville', 'Rapetown', 'Dirtburg', or 'Lazy-opolis'".

How's that for a little teaser?

again, there's no actual proof of this, just some guy that said it...

oh and btw, people were acting like animals, my ex g/f father had a furniture store that was burned down in the LA riots, he never recovered from it and resorted to gambling, ruining a good part of his life...

[Moby]

The lengths you liberals will go, to try and avoid any realities you don't want to face, although amazing at times, is never the less a demonstration of just how totally consumed by the hatred and false beliefs that are the foundation of the ideological beliefs you embrace.

The Story: Ron Paul's a racist
Lady Mod: ummm, ummm, So is Bush!

Nice comeback. :lmao2:
THEN POST SOMETHING OTHER THEN A SILLY RUMOR! You can do a lot better then this pathetic thread.

[radioguy]

THEN POST SOMETHING OTHER THEN A SILLY RUMOR! You can do a lot better then this pathetic thread.

You know Moby, If I wasn't confident of this, I wouldn't be sticking my neck out on this story.

The man said he would post the info today, and even though TNR is a liberal publication, they're never the less considered a legitimate one. If this story came from a blogger, then labeling it a "rumor" would be appropriate.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

The man said he would post the info today, and even though TNR is a liberal publication, they're never the less considered a legitimate one.

:lmao2:

Now there is a contradiction to the Neocon code.

A legitimate liberal publication? Only because it attacked Ron Paul and RG doesn't like Ron Paul.


It's kind of like that fair and balanced news reporting done at Faux News. If RG agrees with it then it MUST be legit.


:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

You know Moby, If I wasn't confident of this, I wouldn't be sticking my neck out on this story.

The man said he would post the info today, and even though TNR is a liberal publication, they're never the less considered a legitimate one. If this story came from a blogger, then labeling it a "rumor" would be appropriate.

3:15pm, still waiting...

[radioguy]

3:15pm, still waiting...

OK... The story is up.

He has not posted any copies of the actual newsletters like he said he would do in his Gibson interview last night, but the story never the less, paints a pretty unflattering portrait of Paul.

Link (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

[LadyMod at scam.com]

OK... The story is up.

He has not posted any copies of the actual newsletters like he said he would do in his Gibson interview last night, but the story never the less, paints a pretty unflattering portrait of Paul.

Link (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

And ergo, just heresay and rumor. Make sure to use sugar on all those lies you must now eat.Looks like you stuck your neck out for nothing Cupcake. LOL.

:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

OK... The story is up.

He has not posted any copies of the actual newsletters like he said he would do in his Gibson interview last night, but the story never the less, paints a pretty unflattering portrait of Paul.

Link (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

yeah i just glanced through it, and guess what, no bibliography, no links, nothing to actually back up what he said, just a repeat of the radio show. With no real way to actually fact check, sounds like this is the real deal guys. We better support Gulliani...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

yeah i just glanced through it, and guess what, no bibliography, no links, nothing to actually back up what he said, just a repeat of the radio show. With no real way to actually fact check, sounds like this is the real deal guys. We better support Gulliani...

RG will slink away and avoid the thread now that he's made a fool out of himself. LOL.

Not a shred of "confirmation" to be read.

Is anyone really surprised by that?


:lmao2:

[radioguy]

I just saw an interview the author did with Tucker Carlson. First off, Tucker Carlson is a Ron Paul supporter, and stated right off the bat, that the Paul campaign has acknowledged that those Ron Paul newsletters do exist. They are not denying what Kirchick published in his story.

Kircheck also stated very clearly, that the transcripts of those newsletters would start appearing on the website starting later today, so you Paul supporters who are still currently basking in denial, better enjoy it while you can.

[radioguy]

And while your at it, please don't disappoint us by refraining from attack me or anything like that... Carry on and get as many shots in as you can, because after the transcripts are up, the parties over.

And just to be clear, I don't expect any one of you to actually do the right thing and apologize, or retract any of your insults and attacks either. For me to think that your capable of doing the right thing and owning up to your bullshit would, to quote Hillary Clinton... required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I just saw an interview the author did with Tucker Carlson. First off, Tucker Carlson is a Ron Paul supporter, and stated right off the bat, that the Paul campaign has acknowledged that those Ron Paul newsletters do exist. They are not denying what Kirchick published in his story.

Kircheck also stated very clearly, that the transcripts of those newsletters would start appearing on the website starting later today, so you Paul supporters who are still currently basking in denial, better enjoy it while you can.

You Neocons have been "in denial" for 7 years. I don't know what it is that you think you have to gloat over?


:D

[disrupter]

Ron Paul in any event speaks many intellectual truths.

Those truths remain regardless.

Truth would probably be alien to you radioguy.

[radioguy]

Ron Paul in any event speaks many intellectual truths.

Those truths remain regardless.

Truth would probably be alien to you radioguy.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

[disrupter]

i don't even know what you are talking about.

Bush used & sold Cocaine & deserted the military, is an alcoholic & arrested DUI,
he wasn't even elected in 2004. Went to war on known faulty rationales, caused a million unnecessary deaths.

Can you top that?

nope?

i didn't think so.

And now that the economy may collapse he is probably packing his bags for his ranch in Argentina. LOL
you got a ranch in Argentina?
didn't think so either.
eat it.

[radioguy]

You Neocons have been "in denial" for 7 years. I don't know what it is that you think you have to gloat over?


:D

I'm not gloating over anything. I posted this story because it has very serious implications. There are a lot of you here, that have chosen to support this man and you need to know who it is you are actually supporting.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I have no intention of beating you all up over this issue, because even though rumors of who this man was, have been going around for many months now, you still had way of knowing if they were actually true. I don't believe that any of you knew this man was a white supremacist/racist and supported him because of that. Some liked his policies, while the majority of you backed him because you wanted to fuck with the conservatives, by making a hero out of him because he was a "republican" that was anti-war and anti-Bush.

The only people I will make a big deal out of this with, are the ones here who turn a blind eye to his bigotry and still support the man... It seems as though disrupter is the first to embrace this racist for president, but unfortunately, knowing some of you like I do, he won't be the last.

[radioguy]

i don't even know what you are talking about.

I knew you were laying the ground work with your bullshit excuses and double talk, to justify the fact that you are still going to support the guy despite the fact he is a racist.

[Moby]

Did I call it, or did I call it?
Even the author doesn't make the sweeping claims that you do.

According to the author it was probably written by a staffer and written over 10 years ago. You recently stated that you didn't care about some one's past when looking at a President. Hmmm....

I think that you're bias and passion for rumors is showing quite strongly here.


And no, I'm not a Paul supporter. I think he's a loon but he's still a member of the Republican party and the Neoconservative press is showing a huge amount of prejudice towards him.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I knew you were laying the ground work with your bullshit excuses and double talk, to justify the fact that you are still going to support the guy despite the fact he is a racist.


What the hell are you getting onto him for? For the last 7 years you have supported a bonified "racist" yourself by supporting Bush and at least the information isn't based on rumors but on actual facts.

What is your problem RG? Do you think YOU are the ONLY person on the planet allowed to support a candidate with a questionable background?

Isn't criticizing who other's choose to back, racist or not, a bit hypocritical when you have unapologetically done it yourself?


Grow up already.


Lady Mod

[Independent Harry]

I knew you were laying the ground work with your bullshit excuses and double talk, to justify the fact that you are still going to support the guy despite the fact he is a racist.

So where's the recent stuff? I mean he only has like maybe 10 things from a 5 year period and claims it goes back for debades before. So that's 20 pieces of literature that he found in, let's assume a monthly newsletter from 1978 till now...31 years, 372 months. So in 372 months he found 20 issues, that may or may not have been written by Paul, nothing recent, all of it over a decade ago. I don't buy it, if you've listened to the man speak, his views, then you would conclude that this stuff either isn't written by him or it was writeen and he didn't endorse it.

[radioguy]

So where's the recent stuff? I mean he only has like maybe 10 things from a 5 year period and claims it goes back for debades before. So that's 20 pieces of literature that he found in, let's assume a monthly newsletter from 1978 till now...31 years, 372 months. So in 372 months he found 20 issues, that may or may not have been written by Paul, nothing recent, all of it over a decade ago. I don't buy it, if you've listened to the man speak, his views, then you would conclude that this stuff either isn't written by him or it was writeen and he didn't endorse it.


OMFG!

Tell me you aren't doing what I think your doing Harry.

[radioguy]

Hey Moby, you took what I said out of context.

That comment was referring to when I said that disrupter appeared to be laying the groundwork to try and justify the fact he was going to still support Ron Paul even though he is a racist.

That's what I was referring to when I said "Did I call it, or did I call it?"

[radioguy]

What the hell are you getting onto him for? For the last 7 years you have supported a bonified "racist" yourself by supporting Bush and at least the information isn't based on rumors but on actual facts.

What is your problem RG? Do you think YOU are the ONLY person on the planet allowed to support a candidate with a questionable background?

Isn't criticizing who other's choose to back, racist or not, a bit hypocritical when you have unapologetically done it yourself?


Grow up already.


Lady Mod

That's what I thought...

I knew you would still support the man, because like I said, who you are and what you are has been reflected by your actions for a very long time.

That makes two racist supporters... Anyone else?

[Independent Harry]

OMFG!

Tell me you aren't doing what I think your doing Harry.

Since this whole thing started, Ive gone online and searched out every publication I could find about Ron Paul. And things he has authored directly, I have not found 1 piece of anything that has a racist contenxt. The ONLY things I found were generally on the values of small government and economics policies. So i'm inclined the beleive this is not his writing, or its just an elaborate farce concocted by this guy.

Until I see a real pattern here, i'm going to go with no believing it, becuse it doesn't fit with what I knwo about the man and from what I've seen.

[Libraltarian]

radioguy, on a recent thread I admonished you for lack of fact checking. Now you post, I'm paraphrasing, that the allegations absent fact paint an unflattering picture of Ron Paul.

Since you are given to forming your opinion on nothing more than gossip, why should I or anyone else, afford your opinions any credibility?

[Independent Harry]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

Here is the statemenet from RP on the subject...considering I havne't seen this from any of his writings, or anything else he has ever done, I'll be inclined to believe him.

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[disrupter]

Well, radioguy, pardon me if i think your credibility raising an issue is suspect.

I have at least a passing familiarity with your rhetoric for at least a couple of months.

You are a zealot, which means can NOT be a conservative which makes your claims to be conservative either a lie or evidence of mental disease.

considering your posts, you might be better off claiming yourself to be a liar.
lol, just a word to the wise.

[Americanadian]

You Neocons have been "in denial" for 7 years. I don't know what it is that you think you have to gloat over?


:D


It's rather simple. Ron Paul poses a significant threat to the Neocon MO. If they can successfully remove Paul from the picture, they can resume their previous efforts to bankrupt America. You know, really fuck America up for daring to support an American patriot. How dare they!!

A firing squad for all the treasonous criminal politicians is beginning to sound better all the time.

[radioguy]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

Here is the statemenet from RP on the subject...considering I havne't seen this from any of his writings, or anything else he has ever done, I'll be inclined to believe him.

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Twenty years of newsletters that bear his name, yet he claims that he didn't write any of it, he didn't have any knowledge of the content, nor does that content represent him.

I'm confident that even if he admitted that he wrote them, half of you would still support him. Just as I'm confident that his denial will suffice for the rest of you.

[Americanadian]

I'm not gloating over anything. I posted this story because it has very serious implications. There are a lot of you here, that have chosen to support this man and you need to know who it is you are actually supporting.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I have no intention of beating you all up over this issue, because even though rumors of who this man was, have been going around for many months now, you still had way of knowing if they were actually true. I don't believe that any of you knew this man was a white supremacist/racist and supported him because of that. Some liked his policies, while the majority of you backed him because you wanted to fuck with the conservatives, by making a hero out of him because he was a "republican" that was anti-war and anti-Bush.

The only people I will make a big deal out of this with, are the ones here who turn a blind eye to his bigotry and still support the man... It seems as though disrupter is the first to embrace this racist for president, but unfortunately, knowing some of you like I do, he won't be the last.

You know, for once I will have to agree with your assertion that people should be aware of whom they're supporting. Which begs the question; why do you support Bush? Bush supporters can 'get off the hook' for being fooled into voting for him the first term, but once they were able to review his policies etc, there was no excuse to vote for Bush a second time.

[radioguy]

Well, radioguy, pardon me if i think your credibility raising an issue is suspect.

I have at least a passing familiarity with your rhetoric for at least a couple of months.

You are a zealot, which means can NOT be a conservative which makes your claims to be conservative either a lie or evidence of mental disease.

considering your posts, you might be better off claiming yourself to be a liar.
lol, just a word to the wise.

You support a racist fuck-wad, so don't try and say my credibility is suspect.

I posted a legitimate story.

Wanna talk about suspect credibility, do so with that asshole in the mirror that puts his politics above right and wrong.

Heil Hitler

[Americanadian]

You support a racist fuck-wad, so don't try and say my credibility is suspect.

I posted a legitimate story.

Wanna talk about suspect credibility, do so with that asshole in the mirror that puts his politics above right and wrong.

Heil Hitler


LOL....yup! A "story" is all it is RG. Is it from the Repudlickin Bedtime Storybook perchance? Maybe if you got rid of your fairytale bedtime storybook, those nocturnal emissions would disappear. Then again, perhaps that's why you revel in it. RG gets his nookie from a bookie.

Ha...ha...ha...

[Independent Harry]

Twenty years of newsletters that bear his name, yet he claims that he didn't write any of it, he didn't have any knowledge of the content, nor does that content represent him.

I'm confident that even if he admitted that he wrote them, half of you would still support him. Just as I'm confident that his denial will suffice for the rest of you.

yes but I've only seen a timeframe of 5 years where things were written in that way, from 1990 - 95. And only about 20 issues have been shown. So I mean if it's 20 years, why isn't there mounds of this stuff.

Also, I haven't been able to find any of this stuff online anywhere, if he was such an outspoken racist, you think there would be other things readily available. Everything references these newsletters. No other news source mentions anything that has anything to do with him being racist. I mean let's look at it, if he was sucha blatant racist, the liberal media would have had a field day. They love stringing up racists.

So this is it, a newsletter, that he says he didn't write. Which I believe him, becaues there's nothing else in his speeches, in his writings, that point towards that or even mention it. Nor do they fit his style of writing, have you ever read anything he has written, presented to congress, written on his website. Speeches given, he doesn't write anything like that.

[Americanadian]

What I find truly intriguing about this entire thing is how RG is supporting a 'librul' media source rather than a Republican.

You know the righties are scared of Ron Paul when....

[LadyMod at scam.com]

You support a racist fuck-wad, so don't try and say my credibility is suspect.

I posted a legitimate story.

Wanna talk about suspect credibility, do so with that asshole in the mirror that puts his politics above right and wrong.

Heil Hitler

YOUR credibility isn't suspect. Your "credibility" is non existent. Ergo, it can't be suspect. IF you want to talk about it you will first have to get some. At the rate you are going it's never going to happen.


You posted bullshit, as usual. Then you whined when no one else considered it legit. Again, AS USUAL.


Lady Mod

[Yirmeyahu]

In 1991 during the Adams Morgan riots, which took place in a black urban neighborhood in Washington DC, Ron Paul wrote a story in his newsletter about it, and refereed to blacks as "Animals". In fact, he even titled the story "Animals Take Over The DC Zoo". The Washington Zoo is located in Adams Morgan.

Well, we haven't seen the story. It hasn't been produced, as promised, as of yet.

But let's assume this article with that title did appear in a newsletter of Ron Paul's. It begs the question: Was he referring to rioters as "animals" because they were black? Or because they were behaving like animals?

If people are rioting, which often includes destroying property and endangering human lives, the description of "animals" often fits, regardless of skin color.

But we'll wait for the newsletter to be produced to see the context and what was meant.

Ron Paul also gave his opinion of Martin Luther King in his newsletters. He called him a "Homosexual pedophile"...

Hoover called MLK a homosexual pedophile. I don't know about Ron Paul. I suspect this is pure fabrication. No evidence supporting this claim has yet been produced. Even if those words did appear in a Paul newsletter, it was likely a quote of Hoover or some other such thing being purposely misconstrued to slander Paul.

When Al Sharpton and Lenora Fulani got together to help her get elected Mayor of NYC back in 1990, she said in a speech "We want to rename New York City, Martin Luther King City". Paul replied to that by saying "I think we should call it 'Welfaria', 'Zooville', 'Rapetown', 'Dirtburg', or 'Lazy-opolis'".

Let's assume this is true, also. So what? That's not an attack on MLK. It's a dig on New Yorkers. He's saying there's too much welfare, people act like animals, there's too much rape, it's too dirty, and people are too lazy.

How would that make him a racist?

Kircheck also stated very clearly, that the transcripts of those newsletters would start appearing on the website starting later today, so you Paul supporters who are still currently basking in denial, better enjoy it while you can.

We're all waiting in suspense.

But the fact remains that we're still WAITING to see any sort of documentation corroborating these claims WHATSOEVER.

One shouldn't count one's chickens before they've hatched.

We're still waiting for this one to hatch, radioguy.

There are a lot of you here, that have chosen to support this man and you need to know who it is you are actually supporting.

Right.

Which is why I have pointed out to you that Bush and his administration are war criminals, guilty of conspiring to wage and waging a war of aggression, "the supreme international crime", and that if they were to be judged by the standard applied at Nuremberg, they'd be hanged.

But you're right. If Ron Paul is racist, we should know about it.

I just happen to think that's a frivolous and baseless accusation, and will continue to think so until I am given solid facts and evidence indicating otherwise.

You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind, without any actual evidence.

And that, too, says a lot about you.

That makes two racist supporters... Anyone else?

And now you're calling people who support Ron Paul "racist", too, despite having as of yet failed to provide any proof whatsoever that Paul himself is a racist.

This also says a lot about you.

Here is the statemenet from RP on the subject...considering I havne't seen this from any of his writings, or anything else he has ever done, I'll be inclined to believe him.

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts...

Thanks for finding that for us, IH.

Well, radioguy, Paul clearly denounces the views you say he holds.

Where does that leave your argument in this thread?

Twenty years of newsletters that bear his name, yet he claims that he didn't write any of it, he didn't have any knowledge of the content, nor does that content represent him.

I'm confident that even if he admitted that he wrote them, half of you would still support him. Just as I'm confident that his denial will suffice for the rest of you.

First of all, he didn't claim he didn't write any of it. That's a patent lie, as anyone can read for themselves. He said the quoted items purporting to demonstrate that he is a racist were not written/said by him.

Secondly, as for the content, even assuming those quotes were real, we have no idea of the context, as I noted above.

Thirdly, Paul, as just demonstrated with actual EVIDENCE from his own website, CLEARLY RENOUNCED THE RACIST VIEWS HE SAYS WERE FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO HIM.

Fourth, your argument that we would support Paul even if he was a racist is a non sequitur and ad hominum.

You support a racist fuck-wad, so don't try and say my credibility is suspect.

1) You've not provided a single piece of evidence to support the above premise.

2) You resort to childish insults to defend your baseless claim.

3) Your credibility IS suspect. How many times have I called you on your lies and outright fabrications on this board, radioguy? And here you are stating as fact that which you've yet to validate, which easily falls under the definition of "lying".

I would observe again that Paul just publicly renounced the views you falsely attribute to him.

[Yirmeyahu]

Now let's examine the actual article you lend so much credibility to and the "evidence" they supply to support their claim that Paul is a "racist".

The article states that Paul's newsletters "reveal...deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays."

In support of this assertion, the author cites a newsletter that condemned the black response to the Rodney King verdict (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf), with blacks rioting, destroying property, attacking whites and non-black minorities (such as Koreans), looting, pillaging, and engaging in general lawlessness and criminal behavior.

Well, this is absurd on its face. The response from much of the black community was certainly worthy of condemnation. Condemning lawless and criminal behavior is not evidence of racism.

In fact, the article in the Ron Paul newsletter is a condemnation of racism. It notes that the riots themselves were a racist response against whites. It condemns the racist treatment of Koreans and other minorities during the riots, and praises those minorities (the newsletter praises the Korean community for being "the only people to act like real Americans"). It condemns the racist treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

The article cites several other examples from Paul's newsletters, but doesn't produce any of them. It seems safe to assume the quotes attributed to the newsletters are similarly misconstrued as being "racist" when in fact the condemnation isn't directed at race, but at lawless and criminal behavior.

For instance, the author cites a newsletter from 1990 as predicting race riots as evidence of racism. But did not the predictions prove accurate in 1992 when Los Angeles erupted into violence predominantly carried out by African Americans? Again, this is simply not evidence of racism. It may not be politically correct, but it reflects certain realities of the socio-political landscape in American cities.

The newsletter cites Paul's newsletter as referring to rioters and criminals as "animals". But this isn't because they are black. It's because they are rioters and criminals. Again, this is not evidence of racism, but of a strong belief in the rule of law and civilized moral behavior.

TNR also cites as evidence of Paul's "racism" one newsletters "kind words for David Duke" (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf). Well, what were those "kind words"? The newsletter notes that Duke did well in a Senate race and had some support from the black community. It praised his platform calling for "tax cuts, no quoatas, no affirmative action, no welfare" and quotes Duke conceding the election but adding, "we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans."

So, again, there is no evidence of racism on the part of the newsletter's author here.

TNR cites a newsletter which criticizes Martin Luther King, but fails to point out that the newsletter calles "forced secregation" and "evil".

And so it goes, on and on.

There are two relevent observations to be made:
First, the TNR author misconstrues the content of the newsletters.

Secondly, even if the content were to contain evidence of racism on the part of the author, Ron Paul has explicitly denounced any such racist views and explained, "For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

So this is all a vain and frivolous attempt to smear him, no matter how you dice it.

[disrupter]

If they can smear the messenger they hope they can kill or obscure the message.

[Yirmeyahu]

Sure. It's an ad hominum.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Great work Yir. RG won't address it, he usually abandons the threads where he's been shown that he lied and bore false witness. (Unless he goes on a temper tantrum and starts trashing the forum like he was trying to do yesterday by dragging this topic all over the place.)

It's hard to believe he's in his early 40's and so rigid.

Lady Mod

[asroc]

Here are direct links to newly released old pamphlets, courtesy of the New Republic.

The pamphlets, many of which do not contain a byline apart from the Ron Paul name on the header, contain the invective of Southern quasi-libertarians who believe the Civil War was unjust (Ron Paul has said this publically and states that the North should have "bought the slaves from the South", which is indicative of his complete lack of economic understanding) and that whites are an embattled minority whose rights are constantly being violated.

Among them is Derek Black, son of Don Black, the owner of neo-nazi forum Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul's campaign.

The original TNR article can be viewed here (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca), original links to scans here (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129).

First off, is the rather notorious issue of the Ron Paul survival report that deals with the LA riots that took place after the Rodney King incident (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf). It was first spotted on usenet in the early 90's, when a noted neo-nazi usenet user cited it, and anti-racist usenet users procured copies of the report for future reference and preservation. It's one of the few Paul pamphlets that was available to the public prior to this New Republic expose. excerpt: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

This Paul Report from 11/1990 praises Klansman David Duke (who has returned the favor by linking to Paul via his website during this election) (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf)

This Paul Report from 12/1990 accuses MLK Jr. (a favorite target) of being a paedophile and a homosexual. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf) It also decries the "evils of forced integration" More examples of MLK resentment here (01/1991) (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf) and here (02/1991) (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf)

This Ron Paul Report from October 1990 addresses calls by black activists to rename NYC after MLK, and offers in response that New York's name be changed to "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" to better reflect its black population.
(http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf)
This pamphlet from March of 1990 defends homophobic comments by Andy Rooney, saying that a gay reporter "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf)

This June 1990 pamphlet contains a reaction against the rise in "out" gay men, and reminisces about the days when all gays were closeted. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf) More laments for the closet here (August 1990) (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf)

This January 1994 Paul Survival Report attacks gays for their "love of sickness" and victimhood. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/january1994.pdf)

This October '92 Paul Report contains instructions on how to acquire an untraceable gun for use against "urban youth". (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportoct1992.pdf)

This newsletter all the way back from 1978 outlines Paul's knowledge of the vast international conspiracy manifested in the Trilateral Commission, a common target of NWO nuts. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/freedomApril1978.pdf)

This 1986 newsletter warns its readers that George Will and Jeane Kirkpatrick are not to be trusted, as they are members of the Trilateral Commission / Illuminati. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL12_86_1.pdf)

This undated letter contained in the Paul Survival Report and the Paul Investment Letter is obviously written by the man himself. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf) It says: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

Of course, none of this makes any difference at all to most Paul fanatics. The Paul candidacy is sort of a Rorschach test, and it appeals to racists, anarchists, conspiracy nuts, and republicans equally, regardless of his past or his policy positions.

[asroc]

So I take it that the argument is that Paul actually had nothing to do with any of those pamphlets mentioned above? His name just magically appears on all of them?

He has a little more than a "moral" responsibility to what is said in his name or with his endorsement.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Of course, none of this makes any difference at all to most Paul fanatics. The Paul candidacy is sort of a Rorschach test, and it appeals to racists, anarchists, conspiracy nuts, and republicans equally, regardless of his past or his policy positions.


Which should make him the Perfect candidate for the Neocons then.


Bush says he's "born again" and believes in God and church and look at the mess he's made of the country.


If we go back to a Constitutional government, then the checks and balances that were woefully missing the last 7 years will prevent any erosion of anyone's civil rights.


Lady Mod

[asroc]

It would be interesting to see what the position of some "die-hard constitutionalists" would have been like during the civil rights movements.

[Yirmeyahu]

Yeah, asroc, I've been through it.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=33270&postcount=92

[Independent Harry]

So I take it that the argument is that Paul actually had nothing to do with any of those pamphlets mentioned above? His name just magically appears on all of them?

He has a little more than a "moral" responsibility to what is said in his name with his endorsement.

So what other type of "responsiblity" does he have, is it financial? I mean, no one was injured, no claims are being brought, he's taking a moral responsiblity, it seems thats the only kind you can take at this point ian...

[asroc]

So what other type of "responsiblity" does he have, is it financial? I mean, no one was injured, no claims are being brought, he's taking a moral responsiblity, it seems thats the only kind you can take at this point ian...

Political responsibility. But also, my point was that it seems like calling it a moral responsibility somehow diminishes it.

[Yirmeyahu]

He's said he accepts moral responsibility for having certain views published under his name while renouncing those views and expressing that he has never and does not share those views.

So it's all really a moot point.

[Yirmeyahu]

What do you mean by "political responsibility"?

And I fail to see how calling it a "moral responsibility" in any way "diminishes it".

[asroc]

He's said he accepts moral responsibility for having certain views published under his name while renouncing those views and expressing that he has never and does not share those views.

So it's all really a moot point.

That doesn't really explain how it managed to happen for over a decade. A paragraph-long, rather limp denial doesn't really render anything moot.

For one thing, it completely ignores the examples that he literally wrote himself.

If dozens of examples of racist literature under Mitt Romney's name, over the course of a decade, were suddenly uncovered, would the same denial be enough?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

So I take it that the argument is that Paul actually had nothing to do with any of those pamphlets mentioned above? His name just magically appears on all of them?

He has a little more than a "moral" responsibility to what is said in his name or with his endorsement.


Did you READ the pamphlets? I've started reading those and so far haven't found one I can say would definitely peg Paul as a racist.


Lady Mod

[Yirmeyahu]

That doesn't really explain how it managed to happen for over a decade.

Well, "it" didn't happen in many (perhaps all) of those cases. I didn't go through all of them, but I went through the first several, and I posted my findings above. I didn't see evidence of racism in any of the ones I examined, as I noted above.

For one thing, it completely ignores the examples that he literally wrote himself.

Such as?

[asroc]

Such as?

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

I assume the answer is that he actually didn't write that.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

I assume the answer is that he actually didn't write that.

It's type written and no signature. However, how does this make him a racist?


In Texas, the State Government has admitted that it is the interloper. The
"Republic of Texas" is the only true and lawful government in Texas. So, what he, if it was him, is writing is in line with that thinking.


Lady Mod

[asroc]

It's type written and no signature. However, how does this make him a racist?

I have the feeling you're not going past the first page.

It's an eight page long document.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I have the feeling you're not going past the first page.

It's an eight page long document.


I read all eight pages Ian. Sorry, but your assumption is wrong. I did miss the signature though the first time, sorry.


Lady Mod

[asroc]

I read all eight pages Ian. Sorry, but your assumption is wrong. I did miss the signature though the first time, sorry.


Lady Mod

Well, then what's your point? It's an official newsletter from Ron Paul.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Well, then what's your point? It's an official newsletter from Ron Paul.

I don't have a point Ian. I asked how that letter made him a racist? And I explained how things are in Texas concerning the government. (see original quote below)

It's type written and no signature. However, how does this make him a racist?


In Texas, the State Government has admitted that it is the interloper. The
"Republic of Texas" is the only true and lawful government in Texas. So, what he, if it was him, is writing is in line with that thinking.


Lady Mod

What is your point with the letter?


Lady Mod

[asroc]

"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

You're also free to read any of the actual, official Ron Paul newsletters I linked to before.

Honestly, what's the point in trying. You'd have to literally have your fingers in your ears for this not to be obvious by now.

Oh wait, he just said he doesn't agree with any of this stuff. Ok, then. It's a moot point!

[LadyMod at scam.com]

"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

You're also free to read any of the actual, official Ron Paul newsletters I linked to before.

Honestly, what's the point in trying. You'd have to literally have your fingers in your ears for this not to be obvious by now.

Oh wait, he just said he doesn't agree with any of this stuff. Ok, then. It's a moot point!

Ian, anyone with a touch of sense can see that between big government and the ACLU there is coming a big race war. All the fear of Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, Gays, anyone who isn't fuckin' white or heterosexual the message is, fear them, hate them. It's bullshit.

There have been people who have said that Aids was manufactured by the government. I'm sure you have heard it. It's not the "Gay" disease, but again that all falls under the category of "They are different, they are bad and must be eliminated".

In all the time I've been following Ron Paul (10 years) and living in Texas (27 years) I haven't seen him do anything that can be called a racist action. I can't see a vote he's made that was racially motivated. Nor will I make one up simply because some well intentioned, though motivated by fear people want to claim he's a racist.

It's not about having my mind made up or fingers in my ears Ian. It seems that you feel you have a weak case to give up that easily.


Lady Mod

[Yirmeyahu]

Yirmeyahu: He's said he accepts moral responsibility for having certain views published under his name while renouncing those views and expressing that he has never and does not share those views.

So it's all really a moot point.

asroc: That doesn't really explain how it managed to happen for over a decade. A paragraph-long, rather limp denial doesn't really render anything moot.

For one thing, it completely ignores the examples that he literally wrote himself.

Yirmeyahu: Such as?

asroc: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

I assume the answer is that he actually didn't write that.

You assume wrongly. My answer is to ask you what evidence you find of racism in this letter?

It's about the monetary system and threat of totalitarianism.

There's nothing racist about it at all.

[asroc]

It seems that you feel you have a weak case to give up that easily.

What do you want to happen? An unstoppable force has struck an immovable object.

It's an impasse.

[asroc]

You assume wrongly. My answer is to ask you what evidence you find of racism in this letter?

It's about the monetary system and threat of totalitarianism.

There's nothing racist about it at all.

I'm talking about it in the context of ALL the new pamphlets, which are GENUINE.

The only tactic you have left seems to be to deconstruct it down to the smallest hair you can find to split.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

What do you want to happen? An unstoppable force has struck an immovable object.

It's an impasse.

Apparently it's NOT an unstoppable force. It seems to have been stopped quite quickly.


Lady Mod

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I'm talking about it in the context of ALL the new pamphlets, which are GENUINE.

The only tactic you have left seems to be to deconstruct it down to the smallest hair you can find to split.

What new pamphlets? Everything you linked is over 15 years old. You haven't brought up anything NEW yet with the exception of the letter mentioning Bush and that's nothing to do with racism.


Lady Mod

[asroc]

Lady Mod, can you please just simply read the TNR article and the linked pdfs of the Ron Paul Newsletters (which were NEWLY found this week) yourself and come to a conclusion based on that, instead of your preconceived one?

You end up falling back on these fairly lame snippy remarks so quickly.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Lady Mod, can you please just simply read the TNR article and the linked pdfs of the Ron Paul Newsletters yourself and come to a conclusion based on that, instead of your preconceived one?

You end up falling back on these fairly lame snippy remarks so quickly.

I was reading them. 1990 is not exactly New stuff Ian.

Lady Mod

[radioguy]

It's nice that someone else thinks that a man running for president, who has put out newsletters that promote racism for more than 20 years, sees this as problem.

Your a good man Ian. I simply give up.

Every person here has their own set of priorities, moral code, and sense of right and wrong. Nothing I can do or say is going to change that. Just the sheer volume of racism contained in literature bearing Ron Paul's name, should be more than enough for anyone who detests bigotry and hatred, to abandon their support for this man.

After all this, any person who is still defending him, making excuses for him, or continues to debate the content of those newsletters, is a person that obviously has no problem having a white supremacist in the White House.

Good luck Ian.

[Little Red Dog]

Although RP claims he did not write the newsletters, there are still some disturbing (and unexplained) aspects of this issue.

He's had years to publicly and emphatically disavow any and all of the sentiments expressed in the newsletters. He has not. He's just claimed he didn't write the newsletters. However, the fact remains that more than one went out under his name (and thereby his implicit approval).

Even though the charge of racism isn't new, he continued to make similar statements that, at best, could be easily misinterpreted. (For example, he implies that Brown v Board of Education should be overturned). He demonstrates either 1) stunning political naivete in someone running for President or, 2) that privately, he doesn't really have a problem with the implications of what he said. Either way, it's a valid question for a Presidential candidate to face.

The endorsement by David Duke. An endorsement from an avowed racist should repel any right-thinking person. He hasn't said bupkus on the matter.

Like I said, disturbing.

[radioguy]

I know I said I was done, but I just read an opinion on this issue, that represents the way I feel about this:

Paul’s defense of these newsletters has EVOLved over time, from the offending lines having been “taken out of context” to having been ghost-written by some unknown, not to him but to us, figure. Eric Dondero, who was Paul’s employee for years, says the ghost writer was Lew Rockwell. That’s very plausible; Paul and Rockwell are ideologically similar. Rockwell’s site is one of many online bastions for defenses of All Things Paul.

But here’s the thing about all of this. To borrow Paul’s spin on the 1993 WTC bombing, it actually does matter little if Paul wrote the crazy himself or had it ghostwritten under his own name. There’s a pattern developing with the Paul campaign that’s become too obvious to ignore. We have a pile of newsletters containing the more than occasional crazy. We have Paul being photographed with members of Stormfront, from whom he accepts donations. And we have Paul supporters celebrating terrorist Guy Fawkes on their big Ron Paul fundraiser day. And we have a mob of Paul supporters harassing Sean Hannity with obscenities. And despite the fact that Paul says he’s not a Truther, he has undeniably courted the Truther vote by hanging out with uber Truther Alex Jones.

Anything in the above paragraph, seen in isolation, is disturbing. But taken all together, it’s clarifying. Ron Paul isn’t just a “small government, constitutionalist libertarian.” I wish he was; that’s how he has long sold himself to the good people who have supported him all these years. But the truth is that he’s bad and many of his friends are worse. A vote for him is a vote for them...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Although RP claims he did not write the newsletters, there are still some disturbing (and unexplained) aspects of this issue.

He's had years to publicly and emphatically disavow any and all of the sentiments expressed in the newsletters. He has not. He's just claimed he didn't write the newsletters. However, the fact remains that more than one went out under his name (and thereby his implicit approval).

Even though the charge of racism isn't new, he continued to make similar statements that, at best, could be easily misinterpreted. (For example, he implies that Brown v Board of Education should be overturned). He demonstrates either 1) stunning political naivete in someone running for President or, 2) that privately, he doesn't really have a problem with the implications of what he said. Either way, it's a valid question for a Presidential candidate to face.

The endorsement by David Duke. An endorsement from an avowed racist should repel any right-thinking person. He hasn't said bupkus on the matter.

Like I said, disturbing.


I remember when David Duke ran. IT was rather surprising that he got as many black votes as he did.

The south is full of racists. The whole country is. Even liberal California has more than a few of them.

I find it amusing that so many Neoconservatives are upset that what they believe in silence is voiced by a political figure and they pretend that it bothers them. LOL.

The letters are still very old. Heaven help us all if something we write over 10 years ago condemns us, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Removing Paul out of the running will not help the Republicans. It's gonna be a Democrat in the White House. The country is fed up with Republicans.


Lady Mod

[Libraltarian]

My bride of 23 consecutive years is considered Hispanic. Her ancestry is Spanish, Azetca, Cherokee & French. When we went to the immigration office the gal behind the counter said, "isn't this nice. You're making your wife an American." We laughed and explained that she was sponsoring me. The beaurocrat turned 8 sheets of red, left the counter, returned, whereupon we were wisked upstairs into some major domo's office and I was given my green card immediately.

We travel to Canada annually and have never had any problem entering Canada. Each and every time we return though, she is pulled in and checked by ICE. She was born in the USA, is at least a 3rd generation American of so-called Hispanic descent, is employed by Federal Court and has U.S. Court Administration identification to prove it and even with that and a passport, ICE still checks her out thoroughly before admitting her back into her country.

So until my American born bride can travel to and from the USA as easily as I, a naturalized American can, you'll not convince me this isn't a racist country.

Really I'm not kidding. Every single time we return, she is pulled in and checked. If it was once or twice in over 20 times, I could understand. Hell even 4-5 times I could understand. It's not, it's every single fuckin' time some white punk with a badge and a GED sends us in to reviewed by U.S. immigration. Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican administration.

I hope yer all so proud of your country. Her ancestors crossed a river to get here. Your's crossed an ocean. Now who's back is most wet?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

My bride of 23 consecutive years is considered Hispanic. Her ancestry is Spanish, Azetca, Cherokee & French. When we went to the immigration office the gal behind the counter said, "isn't this nice. You're making your wife an American." We laughed and explained that she was sponsoring me. The beaurocrat turned 8 sheets of red, left the counter, returned, whereupon we were wisked upstairs into some major domo's office and I was given my green card immediately.

We travel to Canada annually and have never had any problem entering Canada. Each and every time we return though, she is pulled in and checked by ICE. She was born in the USA, is at least a 3rd generation American of so-called Hispanic descent, is employed by Federal Court and has U.S. Court Administration identification to prove it and even with that and a passport, ICE still checks her out thoroughly before admitting her back into her country.

So until my American born bride can travel to and from the USA as easily as I, a naturalized American can, you'll not convince me this isn't a racist country.

Really I'm not kidding. Every single time we return, she is pulled in and checked. If it was once or twice in over 20 times, I could understand. Hell even 4-5 times I could understand. It's not, it's every single fuckin' time some white punk with a badge and a GED sends us in to reviewed by U.S. immigration. Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican administration.

I hope yer all so proud of your country. Her ancestors crossed a river to get here. Your's crossed an ocean. Now who's back is most wet?

My husband is of German decent, he's second generation in this country. In the summer when he was so tanned, he was always getting hassled as a Mexican. If people think this country isn't full of racists, they are nuts. They hire the worst ones to patrol the border.


Lady Mod

[Little Red Dog]

...Each and every time we return though, she is pulled in and checked by ICE. She was born in the USA, is at least a 3rd generation American of so-called Hispanic descent, is employed by Federal Court and has U.S. Court Administration identification to prove it and even with that and a passport, ICE still checks her out thoroughly before admitting her back into her country.

... Really I'm not kidding. Every single time we return, she is pulled in and checked. If it was once or twice in over 20 times, I could understand. Hell even 4-5 times I could understand. It's not, it's every single fuckin' time some white punk with a badge and a GED sends us in to reviewed by U.S. immigration. Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican administration.
...

Sadly, this is not exclusive to your wife. I know many people who have the exact same experience. To say nothing of consistently getting more traffic stops in some states than others.

This isn't some "imagined racist slight". This is what happens. I have a friend who lived in rural Colorado. The nearest supermarket was in a small town. Every single time he drove into that town for supplies (about twice a month or so) he would be stopped by Highway Patrol. Every single time. Never a ticket, never a charge. But every single time, "License and registration, please."

Returning to his home, he'd often be trailed by a police car for several miles out of town. After 5 years, he'd had enough. He moved back to Boston. He has not had a traffic stop in the 3 years since.

I have other friends who have experienced the same thing your wife does, every single time they travel out of the country. Upon thier return, they're pulled out of the line, over to the side. Not a one of them has a criminal record, or anything else that might "flag" them. And it happens every single time.

Anyone who thinks racism isn't alive and well in America, is dreaming.

[Libraltarian]

No, no, no Little Red Dog it's worse. My bride and others call it DWB which stands for Driving While Black or Brown. Most often it isn't a polite "license and registration please" which is actually proper legal protocol. More often than not it's "Who's car is this?"

[Little Red Dog]

...Most often it isn't a polite "license and registration please" which is actually proper legal protocol. More often than not it's "Who's car is this?"

Yeah, he got that the first few times. Then when they knew his car (and they knew that he knew they knew his car), they dropped back to "License and registration." However, they BOTH knew his only "offense" was DWB.

[Libraltarian]

I'd love to see every racist hiding behind a badge get called on DWB pullovers. The problem is damages. Theoretically every racist should be sued but when there's no significant financial damage it's not practical. So racists get away with it.

Just like Sir Moby and others here can spout racist phrases all day long and get away with it.

[Yirmeyahu]

I'm talking about it in the context of ALL the new pamphlets, which are GENUINE.

The only tactic you have left seems to be to deconstruct it down to the smallest hair you can find to split.

LOL!

Well, asroc, the fact that there's nothing racist about that letter at all isn't "splitting hairs", it's the crux of the issue, the meat and potatoes.

So, if you're going to persist in asserting that Ron Paul is a racist, you're going to have to present us with some evidence that that is the case.

Thus far, you have failed to present any.

And you suggesting that our pointing out the letter isn't racist is "splitting hairs" demonstrates how weak is the one toothpick of a leg you are standing on.

It's nice that someone else thinks that a man running for president, who has put out newsletters that promote racism for more than 20 years, sees this as problem.

radioguy,

Give me one example of one of the newsletters that promotes racism. I went through a good number of them and didn't see any evidence for it.

But let's assume there is evidence in the newsletters that the author is racist. Ron Paul has explicitly stated that he did not author them, nor did he edit them, and he has explicitly renounced any such views that may or may not have appeared in them.

So how can you still say he's a racist? You've called him a "Nazi" and a "Little Hitler".

The fact is, radioguy, as is obvious to most of us, is that this is just another of your Ron Paul bashing threads.

Although RP claims he did not write the newsletters, there are still some disturbing (and unexplained) aspects of this issue.

He's had years to publicly and emphatically disavow any and all of the sentiments expressed in the newsletters. He has not.

Yes, he has. Independent Harry already linked to Paul's website where he does just that.

And what evidence do you see in the newsletters of racism? The only thing you cite is his position on Brown vs. Board of Education and receiving an endorsement from David Duke. Well, if he thinks the decision should be overturned what are his reasons? You're implying it's because he's a racist, and I challenge you to substantiate that implication. As for David Duke, would the fact that he endorses Ron Paul make Ron Paul a racist? That's like arguing that if a liberal endorses Ron Paul it makes him a liberal. It's nonsense and an argument completely lacking in logical validity.

A vote for him is a vote for them...

That's nonsense. Again, it's a logical fallacy to argue that because such and such a person supports Ron Paul for president that Ron Paul must espouse certain of their beliefs or ideologies.

You're trying very hard, radioguy, to bash Ron Paul, but in the end all you've got is "Hot Air" (literally).

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/09/the-problem-with-paul//

Again, two points:

1) I didn't see evidence of racism in any of the newsletters I read, and I went through a good number of them before deciding it wasn't worth my time chasing ghosts.

2) Ron Paul has explicitly renounced any such racist views as you attribute to him.

And that's the bottom line.

[asroc]

I can't help but notice you keep saying "renounce" instead of "denounce".

Class, would anybody like to explain the difference between those two words?

[Little Red Dog]

...Yes, he has. Independent Harry already linked to Paul's website where he does just that.

And what evidence do you see in the newsletters of racism? The only thing you cite is his position on Brown vs. Board of Education and receiving an endorsement from David Duke. Well, if he thinks the decision should be overturned what are his reasons? You're implying it's because he's a racist, and I challenge you to substantiate that implication. As for David Duke, would the fact that he endorses Ron Paul make Ron Paul a racist? That's like arguing that if a liberal endorses Ron Paul it makes him a liberal. It's nonsense and an argument completely lacking in logical validity.
....

He was rather late out the gate with his denial. So, whatever.

What I read was disturbing. And as far as implications and challenges - I don't have sufficient interest in Ron Paul as a candidate to care. I didn't have an interest in him before I read the newsletters, and I have no interest in him since I've read the newsletters. I also think he's a non-starter as a viable candidate so, once again, I don't really care. However, you'd think that any candidate would politely refuse a noxious endorsement, if they felt strongly about the source. Apparently David Duke has seen something in Ron Paul that you haven't.

It's really pretty simple: I found what I read disturbing. You didn't. You support him as a candidate. I don't.

[Moby]

I'd love to see every racist hiding behind a badge get called on DWB pullovers. The problem is damages. Theoretically every racist should be sued but when there's no significant financial damage it's not practical. So racists get away with it.

Just like Sir Moby and others here can spout racist phrases all day long and get away with it.
So far we've seen the political party that gets most angry about protecting children the party that spends the most time protecting the predators. We've see the religions that are most against homosexuals seem to have the most homosexuals.

Now you're the most angry about racism yet can't point to anything more then a single word.

You're starting to act like a racist dick head that is hiding his own inner feelings behind anger. Obviously the dick head part is right and the odds of your racism is increasing every day.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I can't help but notice you keep saying "renounce" instead of "denounce".

Class, would anybody like to explain the difference between those two words?

Renounce: To give up or abandon formally, a right or interest, such as renouncing an inheritance.


Denounce: speak out against; "He denounced the Nazis"
stigmatize: to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful; "He denounced the government action"; "She was stigmatized by society because she had a child out of wedlock"


He's not the brightest crayon in the box Ian.

;)

[Yirmeyahu]

He was rather late out the gate with his denial.

His response came out the same day as the TNR article, LRD. How is that "late"?

Apparently David Duke has seen something in Ron Paul that you haven't.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. It's possible David Duke and I like Ron Paul for the same reasons. I don't know and don't care.

What matters is Paul's position on the issues that matter, and his positions are the right ones.

[asroc]

Renounce: To give up or abandon formally, a right or interest, such as renouncing an inheritance.


Denounce: speak out against; "He denounced the Nazis"
stigmatize: to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful; "He denounced the government action"; "She was stigmatized by society because she had a child out of wedlock"


He's not the brightest crayon in the box Ian.

;)

It's a pretty big difference in this situation. "Renounce" would mean Ron Paul is giving up views he actually once held, whereas "denounce" would mean he never held the views and is pointing out that they're wrong.

If one could think "what's the difference" or "what's the big deal" regarding this, they also might be the kind of person who sees viability in a candidate who couldn't keep track of what his own employees wrote in his name for over a decade.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

It's a pretty big difference in this situation. "Renounce" would mean Ron Paul is giving up views he actually once held, whereas "denounce" would mean he never held the views and is pointing out that they're wrong.

If one could think "what's the difference" or "what's the big deal" regarding this, they also might be the kind of person who sees viability in a candidate who couldn't keep track of what his own employees wrote in his name for over a decade.


Renounce would imply that he saw the error of his ways and turned from them.


Denounce would imply that he is only saying something is wrong because it's against his religion or maybe they had Weapons of Mass Destruction pointed at us, or so the Intel said so.


So tell us, what is the "big deal" or "difference" regarding this?


Lady Mod

[asroc]

Renounce would imply that he saw the error of his ways and turned from them.


Denounce would imply that he is only saying something is wrong because it's against his religion or maybe they had Weapons of Mass Destruction pointed at us, or so the Intel said so.


So tell us, what is the "big deal" or "difference" regarding this?


Lady Mod

Well, the difference is that in the context "renounce" would mean that these were views that a presidential candidate you consider worthwhile actually held in his life. See my previous post, basically.

[Yirmeyahu]

"Renounce" would mean Ron Paul is giving up views he actually once held...

Incorrect. The word doesn't imply that at all. He renounced those views, which means he doesn't espouse them and rejects them. It doesn't imply in the least that this was a reversal in his position and that he once held those views.

There simply is not such implication with the meaning of the word "renounce".

[Frankg]

Originally posted by Yirmeyahu
I didn't see evidence of racism in any of the newsletters I read, and I went through a good number of them before deciding it wasn't worth my time chasing ghosts


I find it amazing Yirme what great lengths you will go to , to put your spin on something you don't agree with to make it look like its not true, I wish I had a nickel for everytime you claim certain facts are "not credible and here's why" but then you never provide the "here's why " ,just your opinion

Sure Ron Paul didn't write them , so what , he had to have known about them before they went into his publication, after all it has his name plastered right on the front of it

Here they are

The criminals who terrorize our cities…are not exclusively young black males, but they are. As Children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to fight the power to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against “The Man”
…Order was only restored in LA when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The poor lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) …and then complained about slow service

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

…Blacks have “civil rights,” quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black TV shows, clack TV anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliations for anyone who dare question the black agenda
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCOther1

If you don't believe these are racist remarks than would guess you have a lot of white sheets in your closet

[Yirmeyahu]

Frankg,

The author believes supporting the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action are sensible political positions.

The author cites a statistic that only about 5% of blacks support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

There's nothing racist about citing a statistic and stating an opinion about political issues.

And to say that, therefore, only 5% of blacks have "sensible" political opinions is merely a logical corollary of the given statistic and the given political opinion.

There's nothing racist about a logical corollary.

Moreover, your statement that Paul must have known about everything in the newsletters he published is simply an assumption, and a false one. He's stated that he did not pay that close attention to it. He didn't author them. He didn't edit them.

[radioguy]

Let me add a few more:

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“The criminals who terrorize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

[radioguy]

I'll bet the Ron Paul supporters will think nothing of this excerpt from a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News:

"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. […]"

[radioguy]

Ron Paul also at least was a 9/11 troofer who believed that the our government was involved in those attacks. In the last debate when asked whether he was prepared to embrace those views, or ask supporters to abandon that view and divorce themselves from his candidacy, he said:

"I can't tell people what to do... I've abandon those viewpoints..."

Abandoned... That means he once held them, and my guess is, he still does.

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k)

[Yirmeyahu]

It's a moot point, as Ron Paul has renounced racist views and stated that he neither wrote nor edited newsletter items with racist comments.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I'll bet the Ron Paul supporters will think nothing of this excerpt from a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News:

"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. […]"

AND did you read them in their entirety before you started nit picking through them to conjur up racist remarks?



Hmmmmm?

[Frankg]

It's a moot point, as Ron Paul has renounced racist views and stated that he neither wrote nor edited newsletter items with racist comments.
Absolutely not true , he never said anything like that

[Moby]

OK. Radio Guy you win. Another republican scandal. I guess this makes sense. First it was the pedophile running around Congress being protect by the republican leaders. Then it was the gay Senator looking to get laid in a bathroom, a congressmen using tax payer hookers and now a racist.

You have to love the party of family values.

[Yirmeyahu]

Absolutely not true , he never said anything like that

Got a little catching up to do, huh, Frankg?

Independent Harry posted the link to Paul's website where he renounced racist views and stated that he neither wrote nor edited newsletter items with racist comments. That was probably page two or three or so.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

OK. Radio Guy you win. Another republican scandal. I guess this makes sense. First it was the pedophile running around Congress being protect by the republican leaders. Then it was the gay Senator looking to get laid in a bathroom, a congressmen using tax payer hookers and now a racist.

You have to love the party of family values.

Ya, I guess we better all vote Democrat or Independent. It appears that the Republicans can only offer, pedophiles, racists, homosexuals and religious freaks for candidates.


:D

[radioguy]

OK. Radio Guy you win. Another republican scandal. I guess this makes sense. First it was the pedophile running around Congress being protect by the republican leaders. Then it was the gay Senator looking to get laid in a bathroom, a congressmen using tax payer hookers and now a racist.

You have to love the party of family values.

You know Moby, I considered you a little bit above the common liberal around here, but I guess I was wrong. You are just as pathetic as they are.

How many times in the last 4 days or so have you posted this or something similar now to try and bait me into a flame war? 2... 3... Maybe 4 times now? I expect distortion and dishonesty out of Lady mod and her bunch, but I really believed you above that... How disappointing.

Oh, and don't bother using this statement as a way to try and yet again, bait me into that discussion... It ain't happening. You know as well as I do, Ron Paul is a libertarian in republican clothing.

[radioguy]

Got a little catching up to do, huh, Frankg?

Independent Harry posted the link to Paul's website where he renounced racist views and stated that he neither wrote nor edited newsletter items with racist comments. That was probably page two or three or so.


Then how come in that 1996 interview Yirmey, he admitted to writing the newsletters, and didn't deny it at all? He only said that what he wrote was taken out of context.

So, was Paul a liar then, or a liar now?

I would say now, because if that racist bullshit was really not what he believed, and he never wrote that shit, nor had any knowledge of it, he would have said so then... But he didn't.

Just face it Yirmey... Your backing a card carrying member of the American White Supremacist movement... How sad.

Almost forgot...

Ron Paul... WHITE POWER!

Ron Paul... WHITE POWER!

Ron Paul... WHITE POWER!

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Question Grim.

Why are YOU so worked up over it? If we all go out and vote him in the primaries, chances are good he still won't make the Republican ticket.

So, what scares you so much that you have to make such a humungous issue out of it and alienate even those who might have come to your defence down the road?

Is your inner racist warring with you or something? Are you like Jeckyl and Hyde over this subject?


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Question Grim.

Why are YOU so worked up over it? If we all go out and vote him in the primaries, chances are good he still won't make the Republican ticket.

So, what scares you so much that you have to make such a humungous issue out of it and alienate even those who might have come to your defence down the road?

Is your inner racist warring with you or something? Are you like Jeckyl and Hyde over this subject?


Lady Mod


That is a fair question that I have no problem answering. I fear however, that my answer may not satisfy you.

When I posted this story, I didn't intend on making a big deal out of it. In other words, I didn't post it to embarrass, ridicule or enrage Ron Paul supporters. In fact, I made that clear from the outset.

As you know, racism is a sore spot with me (for reasons I won't get into) and my personal belief is, that it has no place in modern American society, especially in public office.

Now, we may have our differences on this forum (right vs. left), but I have always believed that when it comes right down to it, we are all basically good people. We all deep down inside share the same basic sense of right and wrong, and good vs. evil, even if that sometimes gets blurred when it relates to politics.

When the story came out and the copies of some of those newsletters were posted, to me, political discussions about Ron Paul ended. His consideration for the office of president, was no longer a valid discussion. There wasn't just a few little excerpts, there was over a decade of racial intolerance and bigotry that had been published in his name, and when you consider what was already known before this story broke concerning Paul (his support from white supremacists, KKK leaders, Neo-Nazi groups and anti-American conspiracy groups, along with him accepting cash from these groups and refusing to refund it. His refusal to divulge who the "ghost writer" of these newsletters was, etc...), it was clear that there was just too much for any reasonable person to continue to overlook. This issue transcended politics and became a question of right and wrong. Ron Paul's political platform became irrelevant.

Remember what happened to Trent Lott? He isn't even a racist, but because he said some kind words to Strom Thurmond at his birthday party that implied that he supported the old days of segregation, he lost his leadership position and nearly his entire political career. That incident displayed that America has 0 tolerance for racism and bigotry, even if only implied, from it's appointed government leaders... and that incident doesn't hold a candle to the volumes of racist implications that those newsletters depict.

With that in mind, when I saw Harry, Yirmey and yourself making excuses for the man, and saw that you were willing to overlook the mountain of incriminating evidence, and still support this man for president of the United States, that's what made this a "big issue" to me.

It came down to a few choices... You all were either blinded by politics and willing to put politics ahead of what was right... Or you all didn't think that racism was a big deal... Or you all were racists just like so many of his supporters.

No matter which it might have been, I just couldn't in good conscience overlook this. I was watching a group of Americans that I have known for years now, do the wrong thing, by supporting a racist (sorry, but thats how I see him) and I couldn't just stand by and say nothing.

So there you have it... If you all want to continue to trash me for standing up for what I believe is right, that's your perogitive...

[Independent Harry]

That is a fair question that I have no problem answering. I fear however, that my answer may not satisfy you.

When I posted this story, I didn't intend on making a big deal out of it. In other words, I didn't post it to embarrass, ridicule or enrage Ron Paul supporters. In fact, I made that clear from the outset.

As you know, racism is a sore spot with me (for reasons I won't get into) and my personal belief is, that it has no place in modern American society, especially in public office.

Now, we may have our differences on this forum (right vs. left), but I have always believed that when it comes right down to it, we are all basically good people. We all deep down inside share the same basic sense of right and wrong, and good vs. evil, even if that sometimes gets blurred when it relates to politics.

When the story came out and the copies of some of those newsletters were posted, to me, political discussions about Ron Paul ended. His consideration for the office of president, was no longer a valid discussion. There wasn't just a few little excerpts, there was over a decade of racial intolerance and bigotry that had been published in his name, and when you consider what was already known before this story broke concerning Paul (his support from white supremacists, KKK leaders, Neo-Nazi groups and anti-American conspiracy groups, along with him accepting cash from these groups and refusing to refund it. His refusal to divulge who the "ghost writer" of these newsletters was, etc...), it was clear that there was just too much for any reasonable person to continue to overlook. This issue transcended politics and became a question of right and wrong. Ron Paul's political platform became irrelevant.

Remember what happened to Trent Lott? He isn't even a racist, but because he said some kind words to Strom Thurmond at his birthday party that implied that he supported the old days of segregation, he lost his leadership position and nearly his entire political career. That incident displayed that America has 0 tolerance for racism and bigotry, even if only implied, from it's appointed government leaders... and that incident doesn't hold a candle to the volumes of racist implications that those newsletters depict.

With that in mind, when I saw Harry, Yirmey and yourself making excuses for the man, and saw that you were willing to overlook the mountain of incriminating evidence, and still support this man for president of the United States, that's what made this a "big issue" to me.

It came down to a few choices... You all were either blinded by politics and willing to put politics ahead of what was right... Or you all didn't think that racism was a big deal... Or you all were racists just like so many of his supporters.

No matter which it might have been, I just couldn't in good conscience overlook this. I was watching a group of Americans that I have known for years now, do the wrong thing, by supporting a racist (sorry, but thats how I see him) and I couldn't just stand by and say nothing.

So there you have it... If you all want to continue to trash me for standing up for what I believe is right, that's your perogitive...

Just because you believe it, doens't make it so, even though you seem to think you are the end all be all of what is morally correct...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

With that in mind, when I saw Harry, Yirmey and yourself making excuses for the man, and saw that you were willing to overlook the mountain of incriminating evidence, and still support this man for president of the United States, that's what made this a "big issue" to me.

It came down to a few choices... You all were either blinded by politics and willing to put politics ahead of what was right... Or you all didn't think that racism was a big deal... Or you all were racists just like so many of his supporters.

No matter which it might have been, I just couldn't in good conscience overlook this. I was watching a group of Americans that I have known for years now, do the wrong thing, by supporting a racist (sorry, but thats how I see him) and I couldn't just stand by and say nothing.

So there you have it... If you all want to continue to trash me for standing up for what I believe is right, that's your perogitive...

Trash you?

No one was trying to trash you to begin with Grim. Yirme made strong arguments debunking the letters that you said were proof. Then when he asked for further proof, you started with the "racist" accusations. Not only did that invalidate your claims but made you look like some Kook.

Harry posted some good stuff which you also would not consider. That was wrong on your part.

I merely questioned the lack of evidence and age of the letters. I'm a much different person now than I was 10-15 years ago. I imagine that you are too. Well, probably so is Ron Paul.

As for him not divulging who wrote the newsletters, not too long ago Bush stepped in to protect certain unknown people firing lawyers, hiding emails, etc, etc. Verified and on the front page of the news where all the world can see. And we watched you defend these wrong actions vehemently. In good conscience every day someone here tries to enlighten you to the truth about the president. And you reject every effort. Not because you are right but because you think Bush is some kind of Godhead and frankly, that's not how the office of President was established in the first place. HE is NOT King.

So, three people (out of thousands) in your estimation are so misguided by supporting Ron Paul that it justified you getting hateful and starting multiple threads just to call the man a racist and those who support his current message of smaller government, also racists?

Grim you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities in life.

Thanks for the response. I do feel sorry for you, I get the impression that you are a very bitter man with deep seated guilt issues.

I'm still calling you Cupcake though. :D


Lady Mod

[Yirmeyahu]

Then how come in that 1996 interview Yirmey, he admitted to writing the newsletters, and didn't deny it at all? He only said that what he wrote was taken out of context.

So, was Paul a liar then, or a liar now?

Neither. It's a false argument. He never said he didn't write any of the newsletters. He said he didn't write any newsletters that contained racial slurs.

You're implying that he admitted to writing newsletters with racial slurs, which is simply untrue.

With that in mind, when I saw Harry, Yirmey and yourself making excuses for the man, and saw that you were willing to overlook the mountain of incriminating evidence...

And your fond of making a "mountain" out of a molehill.

I challenge you to quote anything Paul has ever said that was racist.

I challenge you to quote anything Paul has ever himself written that was racist.

Examples to date: 0.

[radioguy]

Neither. It's a false argument. He never said he didn't write any of the newsletters. He said he didn't write any newsletters that contained racial slurs.

You're implying that he admitted to writing newsletters with racial slurs, which is simply untrue.



And your fond of making a "mountain" out of a molehill.

I challenge you to quote anything Paul has ever said that was racist.

I challenge you to quote anything Paul has ever himself written that was racist.

Examples to date: 0.

May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:

"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."


May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

"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."


May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:

"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. [...]"


Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

"Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday"


Don't you get it Yirmey? The fact that Ron Paul singles out Black people says it all. Not to mention the fact, that every time he does, it's to highlight a negative about them. You go back and look at what was being said by the media and by politicians in Washington during the riots in Los Angeles. Nobody was using it publicly as an excuse belittle black people... Except Ron Paul.

Also take note, that he never denied writing any of those newsletters. He never brought up the possibility that anyone else might have written them but him. In fact, it was never even implied that anyone else has ever written his newsletters, but him. That is not what he is saying now though.

There is just too much for any reasonable person to ignore Yirmey...

Just look at what happened to Trent Lott Yirmey, and that incident was nothing compared to the magnitude of this.

[asroc]

Incorrect. The word doesn't imply that at all. He renounced those views, which means he doesn't espouse them and rejects them. It doesn't imply in the least that this was a reversal in his position and that he once held those views.

There simply is not such implication with the meaning of the word "renounce".

Look up "renounce" in a dictionary, please.

[radioguy]

I just saw a story about how some of the Paul faithful (not the nuts, the ones who live on earth) have dealt with this issue. It is done in screen shots from the Ron Paul message board.

Check it out (http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html).

[asroc]

RG that is absolutely incredible:

"All we got now is the signatures, but the point is to repeat it over and over. we can make the thought reality."

Basically they're saying that all they have to do is lie and repeat the lie enough to where it becomes the accepted truth, basically everything the Paul campaign is supposed to be against in American politics.

[Yirmeyahu]

Look up "renounce" in a dictionary, please.

You look it up. It's definition contains no such implication that to renounce a view must mean the view was once held. It can mean that, but it is not an inherent implication of the word. It can also mean to reject views one has never oneself believed.

If you looked it up, you'd see that. Here, let me help you out and do your research for you and help you get educated:

1 : to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration
2 : to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further : repudiate

So, you see, it can be used in the sense to "repudiate", which means:

2: to refuse to have anything to do with

Which is not predicated upon the assumption that one once had something to do with the object of repudiation.

"I renounce racism." That statement doesn't imply I was once a racist. It is simply a statement of rejection of the idea of racism.

As you can see for yourself by looking up the word in a dictionary.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I just saw a story about how some of the Paul faithful (not the nuts, the ones who live on earth) have dealt with this issue. It is done in screen shots from the Ron Paul message board.

Check it out (http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html).

RG that is absolutely incredible:

"All we got now is the signatures, but the point is to repeat it over and over. we can make the thought reality."

Basically they're saying that all they have to do is lie and repeat the lie enough to where it becomes the accepted truth, basically everything the Paul campaign is supposed to be against in American politics.

LOL, we need to mark this day in history. A Neocon and a Liberal actually agree on something political.


:D

[Yirmeyahu]

radioguy,

I fail to see what you are trying to prove with the above quotes.

You've proven he wrote some newsletters. This doesn't contradict his statement that he didn't wrote all the newsletters, and certainly didn't write any of the ones containing racist remarks.

If you would like to persist down this line of reasoning, you're going to have to produce evidence of your claim that Ron Paul is a racist by providing us with one of these newsletters which Paul himself wrote that contains racist remarks.

For all your lengthy posts on the topic, you've still yet failed to do that most fundamental and elementary thing.

[asroc]

You look it up. It's definition contains no such implication that to renounce a view must mean the view was once held. It can mean that, but it is not an inherent implication of the word. It can also mean to reject views one has never oneself believed.

If you looked it up, you'd see that. Here, let me help you out and do your research for you and help you get educated:

1 : to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration
2 : to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further : repudiate

So, you see, it can be used in the sense to "repudiate", which means:

2: to refuse to have anything to do with

Which is not predicated upon the assumption that one once had something to do with the object of repudiation.

"I renounce racism." That statement doesn't imply I was once a racist. It is simply a statement of rejection of the idea of racism.

As you can see for yourself by looking up the word in a dictionary.

You know, you could have maybe assumed that I already had looked up the definition at the time that I suggested that you do the same. Your attitude is nonetheless amusing.

I used the same definitions that you just pasted.

If one were to say "I renounce racism" they would mean that they're giving it up, they reject something that they once believed. "Renounce" and "repudiate", while synonyms, don't mean exactly the same thing. Better synonyms include "disown" or "relinquish".

You can't renounce something unless it was something you previously believed or were associated with. It's fundamental to the meaning of the word. Not really something you can get around.

Whereas if you said "I denounce racism", previous affiliation isn't necessary.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Renounce? http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2564/avatarworking3eq3.gif Denounce?


How many angels CAN fit on the head of a pin?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1647/angelonheadofpinac2.jpg

Does it really matter?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

radioguy,

I fail to see what you are trying to prove with the above quotes.

You've proven he wrote some newsletters. This doesn't contradict his statement that he didn't wrote all the newsletters, and certainly didn't write any of the ones containing racist remarks.

If you would like to persist down this line of reasoning, you're going to have to produce evidence of your claim that Ron Paul is a racist by providing us with one of these newsletters which Paul himself wrote that contains racist remarks.

For all your lengthy posts on the topic, you've still yet failed to do that most fundamental and elementary thing.


You have the patience of a saint Yirme. RG will NEVER admit he is wrong and will never come up with the evidence.

However, just like Bush, he will pass the blame on to someone else.


:lmao2:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Renounce? http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2564/avatarworking3eq3.gif Denounce?


How many angels CAN fit on the head of a pin?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1647/angelonheadofpinac2.jpg

Does it really matter?


For all of Asroc's complaining about the threads going off topic, he's done a bang up job taking this one way out into left field.


:winkwink:

[asroc]

For all of Asroc's complaining about the threads going off topic

I think you're thinking of somebody else.

he's done a bang up job taking this one way out into left field.

This is on-topic.

This is about whether or not Paul ever held racist beliefs, it's not splitting hairs.

It seems to pretty much be split this way:

At best, he never held these beliefs but was so out of the loop and incompetent that he had no idea what was being written, officially, in his name for over a decade.

-OR-

At worst, he actually held/holds these beliefs and is lying to you about it.

[radioguy]

You have the patience of a saint Yirme. RG will NEVER admit he is wrong and will never come up with the evidence.

However, just like Bush, he will pass the blame on to someone else.


:lmao2:

I'm not wrong Lady mod...

There has been more than enough evidence produced. Those newsletters were written and published under his name, and back in 1996, if you called the toll free phone number to subscribe to the newsletter, you got his campaign headquarters. You are defending the indefensible.

What is wrong is that people like you put your politics ahead of everything, overlook all the racist implications and choose to still support this man for president of the United States.

[asroc]

It's true guys, I'm sorry. The newsletters are real, and they were sent out to previous and prospective fundraisers for his campaigns.

[radioguy]

It's true guys, I'm sorry. The newsletters are real, and they were sent out to previous and prospective fundraisers for his campaigns.

What's sad here Ian, and you may not agree with me on this, is that the majority of the left that embraced Ron Paul, did so only because he was an anti-war critic of the Bush administration running on the republican ticket. It was nothing more than a political "fuck you" to conservatives. It's bad enough that those people only endorsed him only to piss off the right, but to continue this farce in the face of all this, indicates just how screwed up their priorities are, and how dysfunctional their lives apparently must be.


On the other side of the coin, there are those who honestly support Paul based on his entire platform and not just his view of the war. To those people, you have my condolences and sympathies, because I realize you don't have an alternative candidate. Even though there isn't anyone else for libertarians to turn to, that doesn't justify anyone's continued support for the man.

He crossed the line and did so in grand fashion. It's time for his supporters to do the right thing. It's time for them to cut their ties, and just walk away.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

He crossed the line and did so in grand fashion. It's time for his supporters to do the right thing. It's time for them to cut their ties, and just walk away.


Oh FUCK that!! Bush has crossed the line so many times it will take a hundred Ron Paul's to even compete with him.

Spare us the false sympathy and get a life you pathetic excuse for a human being.


If the worst thing we have to worry about was that he might have been a racist in the past, we are still way ahead of the current Republican offerings.



Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Oh FUCK that!! Bush has crossed the line so many times it will take a hundred Ron Paul's to even compete with him.

Spare us the false sympathy and get a life you pathetic excuse for a human being.


If the worst thing we have to worry about was that he might have been a racist in the past, we are still way ahead of the current Republican offerings.



Lady Mod

You are the one who is supporting a racist and your angry with me?

That says it all. :)

btw... I love how you managed to justify your actions to yourself. As long as you buy it, well...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

You are the one who is supporting a racist and your angry with me?

That says it all. :)

Former racist if you are gonna split hairs.

And I see it as no worse than you supporting the Nazi lover and racist in the White House.

You are the pot calling the kettle black Grim. You have no room to judge.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Oh FUCK that!! Bush has crossed the line so many times it will take a hundred Ron Paul's to even compete with him.

Spare us the false sympathy and get a life you pathetic excuse for a human being.


If the worst thing we have to worry about was that he might have been a racist in the past, we are still way ahead of the current Republican offerings.



Lady Mod

I just have to add one more thing...

It's apparent which category of Paul supporter you are Lady mod. You could just say "Fuck you" and not have to support a racist you know.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I just have to add one more thing...

It's apparent which category of Paul supporter you are Lady mod. You could just say "Fuck you" and not have to support a racist you know.

I don't support a racist. I support Ron Paul.

And I didn't say "Fuck You". You might want to brush up on your reading skills Grim.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

I don't support a racist. I support Ron Paul.

And I didn't say "Fuck You". You might want to brush up on your reading skills Grim.


Lady Mod

Like I said, you support a racist. It's not like that is something I didn't see coming... Remember Hal Turner?

And it is you that needs to brush up on your reading skills... I said "You could just say "Fuck you"". I didn't say you had done so.

[Libraltarian]

We are all racists and we all practice racism to some degree. Some are honest enough to admit it while most do not.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Like I said, you support a racist. It's not like that is something I didn't see coming... Remember Hal Turner?

I know he writes some very funny stuff on occassion. Beyond that I don't know anything about him other than what you like to spout and for that I consider the "source" and ignore it as irrelevant.



And it is you that needs to brush up on your reading skills... I said "You could just say "Fuck you"". I didn't say you had done so.

Oh pardon me! :lmao2: Let's split a few more hairs. We all know what you were implying, whiner.



Lady Mod

[asroc]

What's sad here Ian, and you may not agree with me on this, is that the majority of the left that embraced Ron Paul, did so only because he was an anti-war critic of the Bush administration running on the republican ticket. It was nothing more than a political "fuck you" to conservatives. It's bad enough that those people only endorsed him only to piss off the right, but to continue this farce in the face of all this, indicates just how screwed up their priorities are, and how dysfunctional their lives apparently must be.


On the other side of the coin, there are those who honestly support Paul based on his entire platform and not just his view of the war. To those people, you have my condolences and sympathies, because I realize you don't have an alternative candidate. Even though there isn't anyone else for libertarians to turn to, that doesn't justify anyone's continued support for the man.

He crossed the line and did so in grand fashion. It's time for his supporters to do the right thing. It's time for them to cut their ties, and just walk away.

I think most people, liberal or conservative, supported him out of a genuine, honest frustration with the status quo and politics as usual. That's what makes this all the more sad and unfortunate. These are people completely disenfranchised by the system and saw something they actually thought was honest.

Sometimes the sheer schadenfreude expressed on this board is depressing to see, I don't feel any glee in this outcome.

You assign the motive of "pissing off the right" to a lot of opinions, criticisms, actions and ideas of anybody left of you, when they don't really apply. If your general ideas (this applies to anybody) or conclusions about liberalism or conservatism come from reading this board, you're fucked. This board is 90% fringe.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

This board is 90% fringe.

And he is one of them. Which is WHY he assigns those attributes/motives to the populace at large.


Lady Mod

[LadyMod at scam.com]

He'll split the vote if nothing else and that's OK. The Dems have better candidates overall. Paul is just the best the Republican's are offering. I like this guys opinions.

South Carolina Debate: Ron Paul Wins Text Phone Poll; Fred Thompson Wins Conservative Voters (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/534897/south_carolina_debate_ron_paul_wins.html)

Jan. 11. 2008

According to Fox News, when all was said and done, the text polls showed Ron Paul winning the debate by a large margin (32%), seconded by Fred Thompson (22%) and Mike Huckabee (18%).

Ron Paul, who has had his problems getting into debates and interviews, stayed true to his constitutional message. And the media and fellow candidates stayed to their condemnation of him.

It's my opinion that whether or not you like or agree with Ron Paul is less important than acknowledging that he has a lot of faithful and loyal followers. People need to respect the amount of votes that his 8-10 % per state could add up to be.

These votes have to go to someone if Ron Paul is not chosen as the republican candidate.

Fred Thompson took the stage at the republican debate and finally got to show viewers who he is. And when the debate finished, Fred Thompson walked out a bigger threat to republican candidates than when he started.

Fred Thompson finally got his chance to "take it to the people" and the people liked the conservative stands he took on taxes, military, abortion, etc. Fred Thompson looked confident and ready to face the challenge.

Fred explained that he was the true Ronald Reagan conservative on the stage. And it would appear by the focus groups that they believed him.

Mike Huckabee did not seem to be focused last night. His performance was not like previous debates. At times he seemed to be groping for answers.

Fred Thompson practically called him a democrat in republican clothes because of Mike Huckabee's stand on taxes and illegal immigration.

Mitt Romney also was not the candidate we have witnessed in previous debates. Maybe he was tired or maybe he was unaccustomed to not being the focus of the debate.

John McCain was John McCain. He repeatedly told us of his backing of the surge and his stopping a $6 billion tanker deal.

It seems like McCain gets a pass on some things because of his heroic Vietnam days. I am as indebted, grateful and in awe of John McCain as anyone for these feats. But, I want a candidate that is conservative on taxes, on illegal immigration, and smaller government.

.

[radioguy]

I think most people, liberal or conservative, supported him out of a genuine, honest frustration with the status quo and politics as usual. That's what makes this all the more sad and unfortunate. These are people completely disenfranchised by the system and saw something they actually thought was honest.

I agree... That is the prevailing reason why people chose to supported him.

Sometimes the sheer schadenfreude expressed on this board is depressing to see, I don't feel any glee in this outcome.

I feel the same way... I even made it clear when I started this thread, that I wasn't posting this story to play political "Got-cha". I vowed that I wouldn't use this story as a means to beat up anyone who had supported Paul, and I meant it. What shocked me, was the fact that this story didn't change the opinion of any of the Paul faithful here... Not one. They all went into spin mode and chose to make excuses instead of accepting, then dealing with, the reality of the racism he is tied to.

You assign the motive of "pissing off the right" to a lot of opinions, criticisms, actions and ideas of anybody left of you, when they don't really apply. If your general ideas (this applies to anybody) or conclusions about liberalism or conservatism come from reading this board, you're fucked. This board is 90% fringe.

I understand you point Ian, but unfortunately that is the case many times. Like you said "This board is 90% fringe", and the "pissing off" of ones opponents comes with the package. I can give you an example on this very thread, from someone I don't consider to be part of the fringe. It's from Moby. Moby chose to use this story as an excuse to attack the republican party, to try and piss me off, instead of addressing the real issue here.

In Lady mod's case, I think it's a combination of both. She just confirmed that what I've said about her since I was on the scam board is true, by again choosing to defend renowned racist Hal Turner. She is at minimum, tolerant of racists and racism in general. At worse, she is a card carrying white supremacist. Either way, it's disappointing knowing that she embraces and or tolerates such views.

Just so you know Ian, I don't see this board as representative in any way, of the liberal left in America.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

In Lady mod's case, I think it's a combination of both. She just confirmed that what I've said about her since I was on the scam board is true, by again choosing to defend renowned racist Hal Turner. She is at minimum, tolerant of racists and racism in general. At worse, she is a card carrying white supremacist. Either way, it's disappointing knowing that she embraces and or tolerates such views.


I live in the South, it's a fact of life here. And don't tell my "black" friends your opinion, you won't make it out of the neighborhood for that slanderous remark against me. (White supremist? Hahaha, what a hoot!)


:lmao2:

[radioguy]

JFC Lady mod, are you kidding?

People need to respect the amount of votes that his 8-10 % per state could add up to be.

We don't have to respect jack shit!

Racism doesn't earn, nor does it deserve any level of respect from anyone.

Anyone who believes that racism is deserving of any kind of respect, is a sad excuse for an American. Those 10% that are voting for him are either uninformed about what the man embraces and represents, or they are the racist supporting dregs of American society...

As we all know lady mod, you are certainly informed about what he embraces, so...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

JFC Lady mod, are you kidding?



We don't have to respect jack shit!

Racism doesn't earn, nor does it deserve any level of respect from anyone.

Anyone who believes that racism is deserving of any kind of respect, is a sad excuse for an American. Those 10% that are voting for him are either uninformed about what the man embraces and represents, or they are the racist supporting dregs of American society...

As we all know lady mod, you are certainly informed about what he embraces, so...


What would you know about racism Nazi-Bush lover? What do you really know about it Hippy boy, Pedophile embracer? Man who sits in the comfort of his doublewide trailer making up websites and pretending he's worldly?

You KNOW Nothing! I think the Arizona sun has fried what little brain you had.


:lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

I don't care if he's a racist - because I think he's an idiot.

I saw an hour-long interview with RP on Beck.

He wants to abolish the IRS, and replace it with ............. nothing. He literally said "nothing". No "Fair Tax", National Sales Tax; just an off-handed reference to existing user fees .... whatever that means. He didn't elaborate.

He wants to bring all US troops in foreign countries home (Japan, Europe, etc.) and put them .......... where? He just wants to bring everybody home, with no ideas on how to house them.

He has powerful initial concepts - but apparently no practical ideas whatsoever on how to make them workable. At least not during his hour-long interview. I kept hearing things that made me think, "Now that sounds interesting." But I never heard how his ideas were supposed to work.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I don't care if he's a racist - because I think he's an idiot.

I saw an hour-long interview with RP on Beck.

He wants to abolish the IRS, and replace it with ............. nothing. He literally said "nothing". No "Fair Tax", National Sales Tax; just an off-handed reference to existing user fees .... whatever that means. He didn't elaborate.[quote]

Considering that Congress was not supposed to tax except to raise money to pay U.S. debts and provide for the common defence........ Not to fund roads, earmarks, Haliburton, welfare, yearly congressional raises etc, etc...

[quote= U.S. Constitution] Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; ...

We don't need an IRS IF we were taxed in accordance to the Constitution of the United States. Of course he will need to have the 16th amendment removed.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But I think a lot of people could get behind that.


He wants to bring all US troops in foreign countries home (Japan, Europe, etc.) and put them .......... where? He just wants to bring everybody home, with no ideas on how to house them.

Of course, they are long overdue. AND we have housing in the United States.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


He has powerful initial concepts - but apparently no practical ideas whatsoever on how to make them workable. At least not during his hour-long interview. I kept hearing things that made me think, "Now that sounds interesting." But I never heard how his ideas were supposed to work.

It will take sacrifice of everyone, rich to poor to make it work. He'll never push it all through because damn few are going to want to make the sacrifice.

[Smurf-Herder]

[QUOTE=Smurf-Herder]I don't care if he's a racist - because I think he's an idiot.

I saw an hour-long interview with RP on Beck.

He wants to abolish the IRS, and replace it with ............. nothing. He literally said "nothing". No "Fair Tax", National Sales Tax; just an off-handed reference to existing user fees .... whatever that means. He didn't elaborate.[quote]

Considering that Congress was not supposed to tax except to raise money to pay U.S. debts and provide for the common defence........ Not to fund roads, earmarks, Haliburton, welfare, yearly congressional raises etc, etc...



We don't need an IRS IF we were taxed in accordance to the Constitution of the United States. Of course he will need to have the 16th amendment removed.



But I think a lot of people could get behind that.




Of course, they are long overdue. AND we have housing in the United States.






It will take sacrifice of everyone, rich to poor to make it work. He'll never push it all through because damn few are going to want to make the sacrifice.

Same premise as RP - you assume things will just pay for themselves. Way too simplistic. I want to eliminate the IRS - but with something workable.

Where do we have housing in the US for troops stationed at overseas bases? We're talking about increasing the size of the military, yet we can't do that and bring everybody home. Are the guys based in Japan, Korea and Germany for the last 50 years going to share beds with the guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's actually an extremely stupid concept. You need to have overseas bases, to pre-position your resources. Look how long it takes to build up anywhere we have to be. We'd also lose allies who count on us being there. He's basically talking about changing the entire geopolitical balance of power; and weakening worldwide alliances.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Where do we have housing in the US for troops stationed at overseas bases? We're talking about increasing the size of the military, yet we can't do that and bring everybody home. Are the guys based in Japan, Korea and Germany for the last 50 years going to share beds with the guys coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan?

They can't pay rent outside a military base? Maybe we should be giving them the raises and not congress.


It's actually an extremely stupid concept. You need to have overseas bases, to pre-position your resources. Look how long it takes to build up anywhere we have to be. We'd also lose allies who count on us being there. He's basically talking about changing the entire geopolitical balance of power; and weakening worldwide alliances.


The allies will have to raise their own armies. We will need to start with diplomacy and not might first. And butt out of other country's business.


Lady Mod

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Same premise as RP - you assume things will just pay for themselves. Way too simplistic. I want to eliminate the IRS - but with something workable.

Unfortunately they won't anymore. The IRS is here to stay, just like big government and huge debt.

At least until the U.S. collapses. Then we might have a chance to rebuild on a firmer foundation like the one that was originally set up.



Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

They can't pay rent outside a military base? Maybe we should be giving them the raises and not congress.

WTF ???

What do you think the active military does everyday? Lay in bed and watch TV? They train and need facilities to do so. Not just a place to hang out.



The allies will have to raise their own armies. We will need to start with diplomacy and not might first. And butt out of other country's business.


Lady Mod

I really thought you were smarter than that. Just snap your fingers and that's that, right?

Isolationism worked really well in 1938, didn't it?

[Smurf-Herder]

Unfortunately they won't anymore. The IRS is here to stay, just like big government and huge debt.

At least until the U.S. collapses. Then we might have a chance to rebuild on a firmer foundation like the one that was originally set up.



Lady Mod

Even Bush wants to get rid of the IRS, with something better and more cost-effective.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

WTF ???

What do you think the active military does everyday? Lay in bed and watch TV? They train and need facilities to do so. Not just a place to hang out.





I really thought you were smarter than that. Just snap your fingers and that's that, right?

Isolationism worked really well in 1938, didn't it?


LOL. Smurf, I'm just messin' with your head. And giving SirMoby a cheap thrill.

These things are irrelevant, Paul will never be able to get rid of the IRS, nor would it be feasible to bring home EVERY soldier on the planet without retiring most of them to Welfare lines. No jobs.

We do have plenty of housing though. And that is what you mentioned, where would they bunk?


:winkwink:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Even Bush wants to get rid of the IRS, with something better and more cost-effective.

Considering how he has helped the economy in the last 7 years with all his "trickle" down, tax cuts to benefit mainly the rich and compassionate conservative ideas, let us FERVENTLY hope he never gets a chance.


Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

LOL. Smurf, I'm just messin' with your head. And giving SirMoby a cheap thrill.

These things are irrelevant, Paul will never be able to get rid of the IRS, nor would it be feasible to bring home EVERY soldier on the planet without retiring most of them to Welfare lines. No jobs.

We do have plenty of housing though. And that is what you mentioned, where would they bunk?


:winkwink:

Cute.

I'm sure you realize I meant "housing" in a much broader way.

Although, it certainly would add new meaning to the term "Battle Buddy", if they were sleeping together.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Although, it certainly would add new meaning to the term "Battle Buddy", if they were sleeping together.


:D I hear tell that some of them wouldn't mind.


:winkwink:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Who is the racist? RG these are all posts you made in July/August of 2007 on another board.

Before you start making claims about racism based on 10 year old letters of a politician and then saying everyone who supports him is also a racist for not denouncing him, clean up your own racist behavior.


I have a very good friend who I've known for 12 years now, named Alan. He happens to be black, but not your stereotypical black man


The blacks in America, have a completely different outlook on America.......they never wanted to be apart of the American culture


To put it bluntly, black families have passed down from generation to generation, an anger and refusal to conform to the "White mans ways"

That my friend is exactly what the democrats have been doing for the last 30+ years. They have promised and fought for entitlements (special privileges) for minority groups in the United States as a means to get their votes come election time. That is the reason that most blacks in America vote democrat


What black people see as "Whitey's" way, is in fact the "American" way, whether they like it or not.

They refuse to conform. Refuse to give up their "blackness". And refuse to demand that their children get the best education.


People who hold such deep seeded racist thoughts of their own should not go around preaching tolerance to others.


Lady Mod

[Yirmeyahu]

You know, you could have maybe assumed that I already had looked up the definition at the time that I suggested that you do the same. Your attitude is nonetheless amusing.

I used the same definitions that you just pasted.

If one were to say "I renounce racism" they would mean that they're giving it up, they reject something that they once believed. "Renounce" and "repudiate", while synonyms, don't mean exactly the same thing. Better synonyms include "disown" or "relinquish".

You can't renounce something unless it was something you previously believed or were associated with. It's fundamental to the meaning of the word. Not really something you can get around.

Whereas if you said "I denounce racism", previous affiliation isn't necessary.

I haven't assumed anything. Again:

It can mean that, but it is not an inherent implication of the word. It can also mean to reject views one has never oneself believed....

1 : to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration

2 : to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further : repudiate

So, you see, it can be used in the sense to "repudiate", which means:

2: to refuse to have anything to do with

Which is not predicated upon the assumption that one once had something to do with the object of repudiation.

With regard to (1): You bold "to give up", which, as I've already acknowledged, necessarily means having once held the view. It can also mean to "refuse". Notice the "or". That means it's mutually exclusive. It doesn't say it means to "give up and to refuse". It says to "give up or to refuse". The former is as you say, clearly meaning the view was once held. The latter contains no such implication.

With regard to (2), you bold "any further", which, clearly means the view was once held. But the meaning may also be synonymous with "repudiate", which contains no such inherent implication.

You have the patience of a saint Yirme.

Thanks, LadyMod, for that compliment (I take it as such.)

I do have a high tolerance, it true. But you really don't want to be around when I finally lose my temper. ;)

There has been more than enough evidence produced.

Numer of newsletters produced containing racist remarks actually written by Ron Paul: 0.

Moreover, Ron Paul has stated very explicitly that he is not racist, that he rejects racism, that he didn't author or edit any newsletters containing racist remarks, and challenged anyone to produce any quote of him saying or writing anything racist.

That remains an open challenge.

[Yirmeyahu]

Who is the racist? RG these are all posts you made in July/August of 2007 on another board.

Before you start making claims about racism based on 10 year old letters of a politician and then saying everyone who supports him is also a racist for not denouncing him, clean up your own racist behavior.

I have a very good friend who I've known for 12 years now, named Alan. He happens to be black, but not your stereotypical black man


The blacks in America, have a completely different outlook on America.......they never wanted to be apart of the American culture


To put it bluntly, black families have passed down from generation to generation, an anger and refusal to conform to the "White mans ways"

That my friend is exactly what the democrats have been doing for the last 30+ years. They have promised and fought for entitlements (special privileges) for minority groups in the United States as a means to get their votes come election time. That is the reason that most blacks in America vote democrat


What black people see as "Whitey's" way, is in fact the "American" way, whether they like it or not.

They refuse to conform. Refuse to give up their "blackness". And refuse to demand that their children get the best education.

People who hold such deep seeded racist thoughts of their own should not go around preaching tolerance to others.

Nice work, LadyMod. Touche!

That sounds very much similar to the kind of writing radioguy denounces as "racist" from some of the newsletters he keeps referring to.

Touche! Very impressive work.

[Smurf-Herder]

:D I hear tell that some of them wouldn't mind.


:winkwink:

My son's unit in basic training had a lot of girls. And a real cutie was his battle buddy.

[radioguy]

Who is the racist? RG these are all posts you made in July/August of 2007 on another board.

Before you start making claims about racism based on 10 year old letters of a politician and then saying everyone who supports him is also a racist for not denouncing him, clean up your own racist behavior.

People who hold such deep seeded racist thoughts of their own should not go around preaching tolerance to others.


Lady Mod

You are one dishonest bitch Lady mod.

Not only was that post NOT racist, you didn't even have the guts to paste all of it. You instead took parts of what I said out of context.

Here is the entire post I made in a thread that was discussing different aspects of race and discrimination, and I invite the moderate people on this board to evaluate it and see if they believe it to be racist. I'm referring to Moby, Harry, Ian, Bill and those that engage in reasonable debate, rather that attack politics. I have my differences with these guys, but I trust them to be honest and objectively evaluate what I wrote.

You know, I believe I can more narrowly define the root cause of the African-American situation in this country. That is, the root cause of why, as pwrone said, their future is not looking brighter.

Economics I believe, has had much to do with things, but that isn't the root of the problem. Economics is more of a contributor, as well as being a bi-product of the problem. The nitty gritty of their plight, stems from their culture. More specifically, their family unit and the way they parent.

I have a very good friend who I've known for 12 years now, named Alan. He happens to be black, but not your stereotypical black man. I'll explain what I mean by that later... About a year into our friendship (hanging out about once a month or so) we were at my place toasting to my deceased mothers birthday, and before we knew it, the tequila kicked in. The subject of why blacks aren't achieving much success came up and Alan said to me "I want your honest opinion of why there aren't many successful blacks, and why there aren't many opportunities for them." I knew by his expression, he knew the answer, but what he didn't know, was so did I.

My answer to him was as follows:

It isn't that black people are being singled out and discriminated against. Those days are over. Look at other minorities like Latinos and the Chinese, that have been here for 3 or more generations. They don't have a problem getting good jobs like black people do, and I'll tell you why.

When their grandparents and great grandparents arrived here, they couldn't speak the language and didn't have many opportunities, similar to black people, but they came to America to give their families a better life. They wanted to be here... Wanted to be an American... They saw America as a blessing, and knew that the only way their children would be able to live the dream, was for them to adopt every aspect of the culture. They demanded that their children get as much education as possible and learn to speak the language perfectly.

The blacks in America, have a completely different outlook on America. The didn't choose to come here, their ancestors were forced here as slaves and so they never wanted to be apart of the American culture. To put it bluntly, black families have passed down from generation to generation, an anger and refusal to conform to the "White mans ways". They look at black men who work in "White" corporate America as sell outs. And here is the crux of the problem. What black people see as "Whitey's" way, is in fact the "American" way, whether they like it or not. They refuse to conform. Refuse to give up their "blackness". And refuse to demand that their children get the best education... More specifically though, they don't demand that their kids speak the English language correctly. They not only allow, but encourage their kids to continue speaking the ghetto language of the inner cities, hailing it as their "culture" and that is the biggest problem right there.

Nearly every single high paying job involves sales of some kind, whether it be a product, or just a matter of selling yourself. If you aren't capable of speaking the English language correctly, with correct diction and in an educated business manner, the only job you are ever going to get is washing dishes or working in a mail room in the basement for some corporation. Other minority groups in America, have been highly successful, because their parents embraced American culture and knew the only way to become successful in America, was to become an American.

At that point, I said to Alan, that both he and his brother (who was a pilot for United Airlines for 22 years) were lucky not to have been brought up in a ghetto environment, and to have had parents that obviously spoke the language well, and had a reasonable education. I had said that, because both Alan and his brother spoke the English language perfectly without as much as a hint of "Ebonics". That's when the bomb dropped!

Alan looked at me and said "What?". "Where did you ever get the Idea that my parents were educated and that we were raised in the suburbs?" He laughed and continued, "My brother and I were raised in the ghettos of Detroit, and in fact, my mother still lives there. We were dirt poor, and if my father were alive today and I put him on the phone with you, you probably wouldn't understand a word he was saying." I then asked him, if his father and mother both were uneducated and neither knew how to speak proper english... He stopped me in mid sentence and said "My father was very poor and could never hold down a job. Even when he did hold one down for a few years, it was still never enough to get all the things the family needed. But my father understood exactly why he was never going to get ahead, and he vowed to make sure that the same thing didn't happen to us. He demanded that my brother and I get a proper education, and whenever he would hear us talking like him, or using ghetto street slang, he would smack us right across the mouth. He did this from as far back as I remember, and that's why I don't sound "Black". It just wasn't allowed."

After saying that, he shook my hand and congratulated me for being the first person in several years that had actually "Gotten it".

*

Basically what I'm saying is, until black families and communities understand that embracing their Ebonic "culture" and refusing to conform to the Americans culture is what's keeping them down, nothing is going to ever change.

Only two people replied to that post, and here are those comments:

Grim, what you've said... along with what pwrone, myself and others have also said... are all in agreement.
It ain't a racial issue

The next few, were made by a liberal that, to put it mildly, couldn't stand me. He never agreed with anything I posted... That is, until now.

Grim, I think there's a pig flying overhead right now...

I responded with this:

Chocho, I know that racism will never be totally eliminated from American society, just as it will never be totally eliminated anywhere.

When I said "It isn't that black people are being singled out and discriminated against. Those days are over. Look at other minorities like Latinos and the Chinese, that have been here for 3 or more generations. They don't have a problem getting good jobs like black people do...", I meant that today, racism isn't the predominant reason that African-Americans aren't becoming successful as a whole, like it was say 40 years ago.

In the past, if a black man had a college degree and went to twenty companies that had an opening that he qualified for, he would have been lucky to have gotten hired by any of them, even if he was the most qualified applicant for the job. That does not hold true in corporate America today. If a highly educated black man applies for a position at a company and is the most qualified applicant, he will likely get that job. America has evolved on the racial front by leaps and bounds in the last 40 years, and coupled with the competitiveness in todays business market, most employers hire people based on the bottom line, $$$$$, and race rarely plays a part.

Thanks for the clarification, Grim. I think there are a few exceptions still, but for the most part, I think that's about right. (I'm telling you, man, there's a whole flight squadron of pigs zooming overhead right now! :eek: :p )

And that was it!

Not one of the replies to my post, suggested in any way, that what I wrote was racist... NOT ONE.

The liberals on that board lived for the opportunity to use something I said against me, but not one of them (including Lady Mod) even attempted to try and twist that post to make me out a racist.

It wasn't until I exposed lady mod as a racist sympathizer for defending white supremacist Hal Turner months later, that she dug that post up and tried to convince people it was a demonstration of my racism.

So Lady mod, you can take your bullshit allegations and shove them straight up your racist supporting ass, you sorry excuse for a fucking human being.

[radioguy]

In addition, there was another liberal poster on scam that disliked me so much, he put me on his ignore list... But before he did that, he made this post:

Not to defend Grim, but he is the only person to acknowledge the exposing of BVR (other than LAdy Mod) when I made it clear that BVR was a racist.

It's easy to label Grim a racist since he's part of the right, but in all honesty (since I've done it countless times) I believe he just might be generalized. Generalized the way that dirty, tie dye, birkenstock wearing, dreadlock headed, dope smoking hippies are used by the neocons as the face of liberals and democrats. Generalized as kkk, white hooded, fascist, war mongering, big business, uncaring fat white, coke snorting, hooker buying, corporate moguls are used by the left as the face of neocons and republicans.

Again, Grim was the only one to acknowledge my posts about BVR's white supremist actions on his stupid Sheperd's Den website.

Here's the link (http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=420437&postcount=75) if you care to verify it.

[Yirmeyahu]

Not only was that post NOT racist, you didn't even have the guts to paste all of it. You instead took parts of what I said out of context.

Oh, so you did get the point.

That's precisely what you've done with the Paul newsletters.

And you see how easy it is to do, from even your own statements, which don't differ in nature much from the selective quotes you've pulled from various newsletters, the authorship of which is also questionable.

radioguy, you've told me you don't believe I'm a racist. I appreciate your being honest about that.

And I want to be very clear on the record here:

I do not believe radioguy is a racist.

But the point remains (I can't speak for LadyMod, but I mean the point insofar as I'm concerned): LadyMod quoted statements from you which could be just as easily construed to be racist as those you quote from certain newsletters, the authorship of which is also questionable, on top of it being questionable whether they were actually racist or not.

I've already gone through a number of examples, early on in this thread, and revealing the full context of each one I looked at demonstrated the same phenomenon we just saw: that it's easy to take single comments out of context and misconstrue them.

In other words, the point, to me, is that you just got a taste of your own medicine.

And you didn't like it too much. Cheers, bud.

[radioguy]

radioguy, you've told me you don't believe I'm a racist. I appreciate your being honest about that.

And I want to be very clear on the record here:

I do not believe radioguy is a racist.

SNIP

In other words, the point, to me, is that you just got a taste of your own medicine.

And you didn't like it too much. Cheers, bud.

You may take it that way, but that is not what that bitch intended. She has made that claim about me for months Yirmey, before this issue even surfaced.

I have made valid arguments based on her words and actions, that she at minimum, supports and/or defends racists and racism. You of all people should know exactly what I'm talking about, even though I don't expect you to admit it. Remember a certain anti-Semitic asshole who advocated for the genocide of the Israeli people, and the refusal of a certain moderator to denounce those sentiments?

The point is, every time I corner her and point out her defense of known racists and her refusal to denounce racist hatred, she attempts to convince the people on this board that I am the "racist" and lies every step of the way to achieve this.

You can accuse me of being many things, but a racist isn't one of them. I find it totally reprehensible that she blatantly lies to the people of this board, to cover up her own misguided beliefs. It's liberals like her, that are destroying the credibility of others that embrace the liberal ideology, and until people like here are weeded out, those negative stereotypes will continue to flourish.

[Yirmeyahu]

I recall the incident, yes. It was a blatant call for genocide of the Jewish people, and condemnable. I was disappointed that LadyMod refused to denounce or condemn the remark, but I don't think she declined to do so because she hates Jews. I don't believe she is racist any more than I thin you are.

I'm not convinced LadyMod actually believes your a racist, either. I think she is making the point that I made. I could be wrong. She might be convinced otherwise.

But my point remains the same regardless. You say she lies by calling you "racist". Well, we say you lie by calling Ron Paul racist for the same reason, applying an equal standard.

Racist you may not be, but neither are you honest, my friend. Applying the same standard you use against Ron Paul, we must conclude you are a racist. That is perfectly reasonable.

Of course, I reject the argument for the same reason I reject yours against Paul. I believe your comments could be misconstrued as racist, but not inherently so, and I believe your repeated declarations in condemnation of racism demonstrate your rejection of the idea.

I believe the same standard that leads me to conclude you are not racist also applies to Ron Paul.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Oh, so you did get the point.

That's precisely what you've done with the Paul newsletters.

And you see how easy it is to do, from even your own statements, which don't differ in nature much from the selective quotes you've pulled from various newsletters, the authorship of which is also questionable.

radioguy, you've told me you don't believe I'm a racist. I appreciate your being honest about that.

And I want to be very clear on the record here:

I do not believe radioguy is a racist.

But the point remains (I can't speak for LadyMod, but I mean the point insofar as I'm concerned): LadyMod quoted statements from you which could be just as easily construed to be racist as those you quote from certain newsletters, the authorship of which is also questionable, on top of it being questionable whether they were actually racist or not.

I've already gone through a number of examples, early on in this thread, and revealing the full context of each one I looked at demonstrated the same phenomenon we just saw: that it's easy to take single comments out of context and misconstrue them.

In other words, the point, to me, is that you just got a taste of your own medicine.

And you didn't like it too much. Cheers, bud.

It's exactly what I did and why I did it that way. It's the same thing he does to others all the time.

For the three years I've known RadioGuy he's always had a penchant to "edit" any post, any article to serve his purposes in damning every liberal, every democrat, every conservative who doesn't "two step" to his tune.

He never acknowledges it, never admits it. Always gets beligerant and starts crying "attack! attack!" when it's done to his posts or his words. LOL. He's a bonified self-righteous Hypocrite in the flesh.

He is no more a racist than I am or Ron Paul is, but as long as he wants to toss around the accusations I say he's as damned by his own words as Ron Paul is by the words of a ghost writer.


:lmao2:

P.S. The bible says that by the same measure you use to judge others it shall be used to judge you. I merely borrowed RG's measuring stick.

[Yirmeyahu]

That's what I thought. And you're right on the mark.

[radioguy]

At least you admit that when I call you a lying piece of shit, I'm stating the truth. Everything else you said, just adds to your resume as a top notch liberal con artist, who's beliefs are so shallow, lies are the only way you can pass them off as valid. Yirmey rescued your worthless ass, by giving you an excuse for your reprehensible display of liberal immorality, but we both know truth, even if you lack the integrity to actually face up to it.

If you think admitting that you attacked my character by manufacturing lies and making false allegations about my beliefs, somehow makes you any less of a lying sack of liberal shit, I've got news for you bitch... It doesn't.

You can go straight to hell for all I care you fucking C**T.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

At least you admit that when I call you a lying piece of shit, I'm stating the truth. Everything else you said, just adds to your resume as a top notch liberal con artist, who's beliefs are so shallow, lies are the only way you can pass them off as valid. Yirmey rescued your worthless ass, by giving you an excuse for your reprehensible display of liberal immorality, but we both know truth, even if you lack the integrity to actually face up to it.

If you think admitting that you attacked my character by manufacturing lies and making false allegations about my beliefs, somehow makes you any less of a lying sack of liberal shit, I've got news for you bitch... It doesn't.

You can go straight to hell for all I care you fucking C**T.

Me thinks you protest too much RG.


You attack my character daily and with much more hate involved, so cry me a river. If you don't like your words used against you, I suggest that you take more care with your posts.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

But my point remains the same regardless. You say she lies by calling you "racist". Well, we say you lie by calling Ron Paul racist for the same reason, applying an equal standard.

Racist you may not be, but neither are you honest, my friend. Applying the same standard you use against Ron Paul, we must conclude you are a racist. That is perfectly reasonable.

Of course, I reject the argument for the same reason I reject yours against Paul. I believe your comments could be misconstrued as racist, but not inherently so, and I believe your repeated declarations in condemnation of racism demonstrate your rejection of the idea.

I believe the same standard that leads me to conclude you are not racist also applies to Ron Paul.

If I were the only mother fucker that believed Ron Paul was a racist, then you calling me a liar might hold up... The fact is, I'm not alone in that belief, as many of his former supporters are proving. I don't see you calling them liars Yirmey. My belief he is a racist is well founded, and there are thousands of people in this country that also believe the same.

What you fail to grasp here, is something that I thought you were smart enough know, without me having to come out and say... But it appears I over estimated your ability to apply common sense to this discussion...

My belief that Ron Paul is a racist, is my opinion based on what I have learned about the man and his past. Whether he actually embraces racist beliefs today, is something only he would know.

I'll tell you what I do know though.

1. He at the very minimum, has willingly associated himself with racists.
2. Is protecting racists by not revealing the "author" of those newsletters (assuming he didn't author them himself)
3. Has lied about his knowledge of those newsletters.
4. Has lied about the role he has played in the production of those newsletters.
5. Used those newsletters to solicit support for his political campaign.
6. Has knowingly accepted political contributions from white supremacist groups.
7. Has refused to refund any contributions made by known racists.
8. Has pandered to Neo-Nazi groups, White Supremacist groups and government conspiracy kooks.

With all of that, you have the balls to call me a liar?

You are a partisan political opportunist Yirmey, and based on the willing ignorance you have displayed, by carrying Ron Paul's water and ignoring the obvious, you are in no position to accuse me or anyone else here of anything when it comes to this issue.

[radioguy]

Me thinks you protest too much RG.


You attack my character daily and with much more hate involved, so cry me a river. If you don't like your words used against you, I suggest that you take more care with your posts.


Lady Mod

FUCK OFF BITCH!

[LadyMod at scam.com]

LOL, watch out Yirme, the next thing he'll do is call you a cunt or a "FUCK You Bitch!" He might even publically wish you dead.

You'll know you've obtained "status" in this world when that happens. Many people covet his "fuck you's" and wear them as a badge of honor. LOL, I have whole wardrobes made of them.


;)

[LadyMod at scam.com]

FUCK OFF BITCH!

See what I mean?

Ahhh! A new hat. Thanks Cupcake! :kiss:

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Yirmeyahu]

radioguy,

LadyMod demonstrated very clearly what a hypocrite you are. You pull selected statements out of context from the newsletters and cry "racist", when the nature of the comments are quite similar in nature to comments you yourself have made (as LadyMod observed).

You argue that your words were taken out of context and misconstrued. Well, just as you have taken quotes out of context and misconstrued them, which I addressed on page 2 or 3 or so of this thread, very early on.

I went through a good number of the newsletters and didn't see evidence of racism in them. I did find evidence, as I just said, of statements being taken out of context and misconstrued to mean one thing when something else was intended entirely.

Applying the same standard to you as you do to Ron Paul, we must conclude that you are a racist. LadyMod is absolutely correct in that observation, and hardly a "liar" for applying YOUR OWN STANDARD to you.

Of course, you don't apply the same standard to yourself, and are hence a hypocrite.

Finally, on top of the newsletters I saw not containing racist comments, Paul didn't write many of them. He has also, like you, stated that he is not a racist, that he rejects racism and racist views. And he has challenged anyone to produce anything he's actually said or written that was racist.

Here's the count:

Items presented by radioguy that Ron Paul has actually said or written that was racist: 0

[Yirmeyahu]

Oh, and on top of having been proved once again to be a hypocrite, you're behaving like a spoiled brat child, insulting and slandering and throwing your virtual tantrum. Really, radioguy, act your age. Grow up.

[Independent Harry]

At least you admit that when I call you a lying piece of shit, I'm stating the truth. Everything else you said, just adds to your resume as a top notch liberal con artist, who's beliefs are so shallow, lies are the only way you can pass them off as valid. Yirmey rescued your worthless ass, by giving you an excuse for your reprehensible display of liberal immorality, but we both know truth, even if you lack the integrity to actually face up to it.

If you think admitting that you attacked my character by manufacturing lies and making false allegations about my beliefs, somehow makes you any less of a lying sack of liberal shit, I've got news for you bitch... It doesn't.

You can go straight to hell for all I care you fucking C**T.

Umm, what about you Grim, stating these words? Are these not your words, did you not write this racist editorial? I mean, here we have you deploring racism, denoucing it atop the soapbox for all the world to hear, and viola we see you write something "equally" as racist as the accusations you are making. What is your defense? At the time of the post did you have an editorial staff writing all your posts?

The proof is right there grim, its not so hard to read, she didn't manufacture that, you wrote it. In fact I remember you writing that. And thinking to myself, what a racist bastard, but you don't even say its not yours. You accept that you wrote it, while Ron Paul says he didn't. So whose the racist...

[Moby]

Umm, what about you Grim, stating these words? Are these not your words, did you not write this racist editorial? I mean, here we have you deploring racism, denoucing it atop the soapbox for all the world to hear, and viola we see you write something "equally" as racist as the accusations you are making. What is your defense? At the time of the post did you have an editorial staff writing all your posts?

The proof is right there grim, its not so hard to read, she didn't manufacture that, you wrote it. In fact I remember you writing that. And thinking to myself, what a racist bastard, but you don't even say its not yours. You accept that you wrote it, while Ron Paul says he didn't. So whose the racist...
While using the term cunt or bitch towards a woman during an argument shows signs of underlying hate towards women does that really mean racism? I mean race is usually referred to as heritage or decent.

I guess it could point to a group of common people such as women.

However, I think the term racism may be accurate here I think it's pushing the limits with the idea of conjuring up other connotations.

I'll agree with prejudice, sexist or hateful but question racist since it's a word that's usually used to describe some thing slightly different.

[asroc]

I haven't assumed anything. Again:



With regard to (1): You bold "to give up", which, as I've already acknowledged, necessarily means having once held the view. It can also mean to "refuse". Notice the "or". That means it's mutually exclusive. It doesn't say it means to "give up and to refuse". It says to "give up or to refuse". The former is as you say, clearly meaning the view was once held. The latter contains no such implication.

With regard to (2), you bold "any further", which, clearly means the view was once held. But the meaning may also be synonymous with "repudiate", which contains no such inherent implication.

By your explanation, this means that dictionaries commonly have two separate definitions in one definition. :) Even within the first definition, which you're trying to explain means two separate concepts at once, refuse is used in the context of giving up something froma previous affiliation.

The "or" is preceded by a comma, within a single dictionary definition, this still means that the definition is the same, sorry. Ask around. Do any investigation.

Yes, because it says "any further", it is then referring to definitions of repudiate (they exist quite plainly when you look up the word), where a previous affilition is necessary. You do know how to use dictionary definitions, yes?

Shall we take further debate about what "is" is to another thread, perhaps entitled "EXCRUTIATING MINUTIAE: How Yirmeyahu Will Argue Anything, No Matter How Ridiculous, In Order To Never Concede A Point".

Perhaps in the subforum located directly up your ass?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

While using the term cunt or bitch towards a woman during an argument shows signs of underlying hate towards women does that really mean racism? I mean race is usually referred to as heritage or decent.

Women decended from Eve. We don't know her heritage though, unless you want to call her one of the original Jews?


If I was a man, RG wouldn't get so violent in his posts. What he can't stand is that I'm a woman and constantly show him up for what he is.

No, I don't need any knights in shining armor. Men like RG are the kind of men mother's warned us about as girls and we steer a wide path around them and do not associate with them in any place where there aren't a lot of people present for our own safety.

Rapists tend to have some of his mentality.


Lady Mod

[asroc]

It's not racism, it's misogyny.

When arguing with somebody of the same gender, you don't simply demean them by saying that they're literally an animal, and a submissive one at that.

It's a word I learned a long time ago not to use. People don't understand its implications anymore. Men never did and even women will use it against one another, not knowing that the word diminishes themselves as well.

[radioguy]

radioguy,

LadyMod demonstrated very clearly what a hypocrite you are. You pull selected statements out of context from the newsletters and cry "racist", when the nature of the comments are quite similar in nature to comments you yourself have made (as LadyMod observed).

This will be the last comment I will make about this Yirmey.

I did not "pull selected statements out of context from the newsletters and cry "racist"" Yirmey, because I wasn't the one who wrote that article.

You seem to think you're the "the authority" and the know-all end-all final say so on what those newsletters did and didn't say or imply.

Guess what pal, you're not!

I have posted quotes and articles from his own supporters, who made the exact same observations, and came to the very same conclusions, as I came to, so don't you look down your fucking nose at me and act like your interpretation of those newsletters is FACT and etched in stone.

Whether you like it or not, there are thousands of people smarter than you, with more credibility than you, that interpreted those newsletters as being "racist", and there is nothing you can possibly say, display, or present that will change those evaluations.

So do me a favor, and stop calling me a liar and attacking me for coming to the same rational conclusion, that many other thousands of people also came to, based on the evidence that's before us.

You argue that your words were taken out of context and misconstrued. Well, just as you have taken quotes out of context and misconstrued them, which I addressed on page 2 or 3 or so of this thread, very early on.

My words were NOT taken out of context Yirmey. The bitch that claimed that my post was racist, has already admitted it was a lie to begin with, so the reality is Yirmey, no such controversy over the interpretation of words ever existed. There was never any confusion about my post... Just a blatant lie.

Applying the same standard to you as you do to Ron Paul, we must conclude that you are a racist. LadyMod is absolutely correct in that observation, and hardly a "liar" for applying YOUR OWN STANDARD to you.

Wrong!

My words were not taken out of context, and did not lead anyone to a false interpretation of my believes, because it was a blatant lie to begin with.

Finally, on top of the newsletters I saw not containing racist comments, That is not a fact, but merely your opinion. One that thousands of people happen to disagree with, including myself. Paul didn't write many of them. Again, that is your opinion and not a fact. Nobody else has been named as the writer, nor has anyone come forward and claimed to be. He has also, like you, stated that he is not a racist, that he rejects racism and racist views. True, but unlike Paul, I don't have over 10 years of newsletters that are in my name, that make racist innuendos, nor do I have racist organizations supporting me, nor have I accepted money from racists and racist groups, nor do I associate with racists. And he has challenged anyone to produce anything he's actually said or written that was racist. Again, you have assumed as fact, that he wasn't the author of the controversial newsletters, when that has not been established. You also choose to ignore all the other facts that are known about the man and his ties to racists and racist organizations.

Finally, I treat you and every other member of this forum with at least some measure of respect, and make an honest effort to keep the debates a civil as I can. Although I may take a jab at liberalism in general from time to time, I don't make it a practice to launch unprovoked personal attacks on anyone, nor do I manufacture phony quotes, or lie about a persons beliefs or character. There is however, one very notable exception and you know who that exception is.

She has attacked me on a personal level with a ferocity that has been frankly, hard to believe. Her continued unprovoked attacks on my character, beliefs, intelligence and honesty, have been a part of her daily routine for many months now, despite my efforts to defuse the situation. On top of that, this is the third time in the 5 months I've been here, that she has blatantly lied and misrepresent my words and beliefs to the members of this forum, and I have had enough.

She doesn't deserve, nor will she receive any measure of respect from me. Her actions have earned her more shit than I could ever possibly dish out, and if you have an issue with that, all I can say is "tough shit".

She is a self admitted liar and a bitch in every sense of the word. Her beliefs are based purely on a very shallow and self centered political agenda, which has very little regard for honesty, moral standards, or what is right and wrong. She has put her political beliefs above all else and as she has proven time and time again, will do or say anything, whether true or false, right or wrong, to prop up those beliefs... She has demonstrated that there is no line she won't cross in the name of here political agenda, and has all too often resorted to manufacturing phony arguments as well as engaging in character assassinations that are based upon complete and total lies.

She is a despicable, sad excuse for a human being... A title she has worked very hard to earn.

[radioguy]

Women decended from Eve. We don't know her heritage though, unless you want to call her one of the original Jews?


If I was a man, RG wouldn't get so violent in his posts. What he can't stand is that I'm a woman and constantly show him up for what he is.

No, I don't need any knights in shining armor. Men like RG are the kind of men mother's warned us about as girls and we steer a wide path around them and do not associate with them in any place where there aren't a lot of people present for our own safety.

Rapists tend to have some of his mentality.


Lady Mod

This has nothing to do with race or gender... It's about you bitch!

You are a sorry excuse for a human being. A self admitted liar that will resort to any tactic, no matter how despicable, to prop up your dysfunctional and completely flawed political ideology, and I've simply had enough.

Anyone who would resort to falsely claiming someone is a racist, just to cover up their own misguided political choices, isn't deserving of respect from anyone, on any level.

So lady bitch, you can take your dime store psycho analysis and your rapist innuendos and shove them straight up you lying liberal ass.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Anyone who would resort to falsely claiming someone is a racist, just to cover up their own misguided political choices, isn't deserving of respect from anyone, on any level.

Then it shouldn't surprise you at all that you don't get any respect around here, kiddo. You have been falsely calling me a racist, without any kind of real proof, since you showed up here. You have harrassed me about it for 2 years, started threads devoted to it, slandered me every chance you get.

They give you a pass here because there aren't any Neocons worth beating up on that stick around. Frankie earned their respect. HD is running a close second to you. Basically Cupcake, what you manage to do pretty regularly is break up the monotony around here. :D

Do I really care? Nope, you can go ahead and look like slime on any forum you care to except the one where I moderate. Ya, I know, it chaps your ass, too bad. You didn't obey the rules there any better than you follow them here. I just had enough putting up with you and we didn't need your constant attacking me to bring in the traffic.

And talk about misguided political choices? LOL, you chose the king of racists and Jew haters himself, George W. Bush to support. THAT doesn't say much about your standards at all.


:lmao2:

[Independent Harry]

While using the term cunt or bitch towards a woman during an argument shows signs of underlying hate towards women does that really mean racism? I mean race is usually referred to as heritage or decent.

I guess it could point to a group of common people such as women.

However, I think the term racism may be accurate here I think it's pushing the limits with the idea of conjuring up other connotations.

I'll agree with prejudice, sexist or hateful but question racist since it's a word that's usually used to describe some thing slightly different.

I was referring to the post he wrote on scam.com, that ladymod so kindly provided for us a couple pages back in the thread.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

It's not racism, it's misogyny.

When arguing with somebody of the same gender, you don't simply demean them by saying that they're literally an animal, and a submissive one at that.

It's a word I learned a long time ago not to use. People don't understand its implications anymore. Men never did and even women will use it against one another, not knowing that the word diminishes themselves as well.


Interesting. I found this explanation and it seems to fit RG's behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

There are many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories.

Apparently I don't fall into the Ann Coulter or meek, complacent female categories.


Thank goodness.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

I just wanted to help spread the Ron Paul message, for all you fans out there.

Pic1 - This shows Ron Paul's racist behavior in all it's glory, and also shows that he is the one who in fact authored this gem.

Pic2 - This shows his preoccupation with black people taking over the country.

Pic3 - Don't you love how he labels this incident an episode of "Black rage" by a "Black mob".

Pic4 - This one has two points of interest. The obvious one, is how he levels the blame for interracial crimes on blacks, and has to post a story that backs up his "innocent" assertions. The other point of interest, is the man he sited, Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance. Some pal huh?

Pic5 - It's now 4 years later, and he is still trying to pound his "Blacks are to blame" message into his readers heads. He again sites his white supremacist pal Jared Taylor, but this time he labels him a "criminologist"... That's a laugh.


Anyway, I hope all you Ron Paul supporters enjoy basking in his words and soaking up his message of love and racial equality.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Yawn..........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................


.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Ron Paul backers keep faith (http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/01/ron_paul_backers_keep_faith.html)

by Ted Roelofs
Tuesday January 15, 2008

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/01/large_RON%20PAUL.jpg
Ron Paul supporters and volunteers stand outside American Opinion bookstore on Plainfield Avenue NE on Monday.

There is perhaps one sure thing about today's GOP primary.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul will not win.

And his hardy, loyal -- and some might say, fanatical -- band of Libertarian partisans will simmer at the injustice of it all.

Grand Rapids resident Ruth Harper, 65, like many West Michigan supporters, credits the news media with systematically ignoring or distorting what Paul's campaign is about.

"They seem to have a ground rule," said Harper, a former public and private school teacher with a love of the U.S. Constitution. "Do not mention Ron Paul's name. And if you do, mention that he cannot win."

It has been like that for Paul since he began his improbable campaign for the White House.

He defied the odds by raising more money than anyone thought he could. He did better than many predicted in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, finishing close to Arizona Sen. John McCain in fourth. He beat former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He finished just behind Giuliani in New Hampshire -- and ahead of another GOP heavyweight, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

On Dec. 16, he stunned many analysts by raising more than $6 million in a single day through the Internet.

And yet, he is relegated to the role of media punch line in most discussions of the GOP race for president.

It certainly has not been for lack of trying.

His backers -- convinced by his fidelity to the Constitution, opposition to the war in Iraq, preference for small government -- insist he is best for America. Supporters stood out in the snow in New Hampshire, yelling and waving signs in the background as national TV journalists did standup reports.

Local organizers have done that and more, going to door-to-door, braving rain and cold to wave their Ron Paul signs, trying to tell everyone who will listen that theirs in the best candidate. One supporter repeatedly yelled Paul's name exiting a McCain campaign rally Wednesday at the Gerald R. Ford International Airport.

"He is a very frugal and honest man," said Gloria Carroll, a native of the Philippines who emigrated to the United States in 2000. Since she began volunteering for Paul in June, Carroll estimates she has logged 1,000 hours on his behalf.

Carroll is a chief organizer of local Paul supporters, keeping a list with more than 300 names. The local group includes Paul's brother, David Paul, assistant pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Grand Rapids.

Carroll said she fears the same abuses of power in this country as she witnessed in the Philippines. She believes Paul is the man to ensure that doesn't happen.

"I grew up looking at America. I thought there was no corruption in America."

Part of Carroll understands Paul cannot win. But she believes if he got a fair shake from the media, he would stand a chance.

"The media is always insinuating that he is a kook. How can you be a kook when the U.S. military is building an empire in Iraq?

"How can you be a kook when the economy is going down? If the media is really for the people, I think Dr. Paul will have the highest vote."



.

[Little Red Dog]

I know this is going to call down the wrath of rg upon my keyboard, but....

How exactly does that image show that Ron Paul authored that doc?

Dude, I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, and I can't buy that as "proof".

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I know this is going to call down the wrath of rg upon my keyboard, but....

How exactly does that image show that Ron Paul authored that doc?

Dude, I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, and I can't buy that as "proof".


BECAUSE.................HE SAID SO...............................


Silly.


:D

[Americanadian]

I know this is going to call down the wrath of rg upon my keyboard, but....

How exactly does that image show that Ron Paul authored that doc?

Dude, I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, and I can't buy that as "proof".


Well you see "little pup", it doesn't have RG's ass imprint of approval.

Rodeogirl is a minature copy of GW Bush. Therefore, you must believe his every word. Didn't they teach you numbskulls anything in Sunday School for fuck's sake!? :D

[Yirmeyahu]

By your explanation, this means that dictionaries commonly have two separate definitions in one definition.

Yes, asroc, that is correct. Hence the use of the word "or", as opposed to "and", in many definitions. Hence the use of the semicolon (;) to expand upon the words potential meaning.

To "renounce" can mean "to refuse" or "to repudiate", neither of which imply that a view was once held before it was refused or repudiated.

I did not "pull selected statements out of context from the newsletters and cry "racist"" Yirmey, because I wasn't the one who wrote that article.

No, you didn't write the article, but you did use it as justification for calling Ron Paul a "racist". You did point to those selected statements as "evidence". So let's not split hairs.

The bitch that claimed that my post was racist, has already admitted it was a lie to begin with, so the reality is Yirmey, no such controversy over the interpretation of words ever existed.ow many people think your statements are racist.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to LadyMod as "The bitch", please. If you can't be civil, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

And your lying again. LadyMod never "admitted" that she lied about anything. She was making a point. And the means by which she made it was TO APPLY YOUR OWN STANDARD AGAINST YOU. And the point she made by doing so was that YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.


She has attacked me on a personal level with a ferocity that has been frankly, hard to believe.

Boo fucking hoo.

She made an accurate observation about your hypocrisy by posting your own comments about blacks that are similar in nature to the comments about blacks you've cited from the newsletters as being "racist". It was a valid and logical argument to make, a relavant point about your hypocrisy. You're the one making personal attacks. And there's more hypocrisy in that.

[Yirmeyahu]

I just wanted to help spread the Ron Paul message, for all you fans out there.

I have a very good friend who I've known for 12 years now, named Alan. He happens to be black, but not your stereotypical black man


The blacks in America, have a completely different outlook on America.......they never wanted to be apart of the American culture


To put it bluntly, black families have passed down from generation to generation, an anger and refusal to conform to the "White mans ways"

That my friend is exactly what the democrats have been doing for the last 30+ years. They have promised and fought for entitlements (special privileges) for minority groups in the United States as a means to get their votes come election time. That is the reason that most blacks in America vote democrat


What black people see as "Whitey's" way, is in fact the "American" way, whether they like it or not.

They refuse to conform. Refuse to give up their "blackness". And refuse to demand that their children get the best education.

Anyway, I hope all you Ron Paul supporters enjoy basking in his words and soaking up his message of love and racial equality.

Oh, wait...

[Independent Harry]

lol, editorial errors time, the post above, the quote was written by RadioGuy, as Ron Paul is not actually a member of this forum. Thank you.

[Americanadian]

Someone should get a violin and play Rodeogirl a song or two.

Also tell him that "Sympathy" is in the dictionary if he wants any. :D

[Little Red Dog]

...Didn't they teach you numbskulls anything in Sunday School for fuck's sake!? :D

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have skipped "Mindless Nodding and Acquiescence".

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have skipped "Mindless Nodding and Acquiescence".

Shame on you. I think you can take it as "distance" learning. FOX runs a course 24/7. ;)


Lady Mod

[Betty Blowtorch]

Someone should get a violin and play Rodeogirl a song or two.


COMRADE RADIOGIRL, what shall I play for you?

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7134/violincastroyn0.png
Sorry, I don't know "Cry Me A River"

(but if you hum a few bars, I can fake it)

[LadyMod at scam.com]

COMRADE RADIOGIRL, what shall I play for you?

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7134/violincastroyn0.png
Sorry, I don't know "Cry Me A River"

(but if you hum a few bars, I can fake it)


ROFLOL :D

[Betty Blowtorch]

Hey Libby and Radiogirl


We better look under this rock
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1324/boulderguysresizeqv7.png
There might be a racist hiding there.




And we better look inside this dumpster

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/624/dumpsterdivingfn0.png
There could be a racist hiding in there.



And don't forget to look under your bed

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8121/bedcatunderbedresizepj6.png
There might be a racist hiding there too



And for god's sake, be sure to
look in your medicine cabinet!

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8001/medicinecabinetbiggerrefb1.png
You could be out of Haldol and Thorazine
that control your paranoid schizophrenia

[Americanadian]

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have skipped "Mindless Nodding and Acquiescence".


And don't forget the instructional tutorial about uttering those half dead "Amens" to show that you're not napping. :D

[Americanadian]

Hey Libby and Radiogirl


We better look under this rock
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1324/boulderguysresizeqv7.png
There might be a racist hiding there.

LOL....good one BB.

All that Rodeogirl needs to do is look in the mirror if he wants to find a racist close to home. :lmao2: