More from the racist Ron Paul

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul: Black lawmakers oppose war because they the money for food stamps

Former Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has long been one of the most vociferous opponents of interventionism in American foreign policy, but the libertarian-leaning conservative has some harsh — i.e., racist — words for some of his allies in that fight.

In an interview earlier this month with Lew Rockwell — flagged today by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper — Paul asserted that members of the Congressional Black Caucus oppose military intervention abroad because they’d rather spend funds on food stamps than war.

“I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not — they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here,” Paul told Rockwell.

Paul proceeded to criticize Black Caucus members as ineffective advocates against war, arguing that too many of them voted for sanctions against U.S. adversaries, which Paul said “never get the results that they thought there were going to get.”

audio on site at link - http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/ron_paul_congressional_black_caucus_opposes_war_be cause_they_want_to_spend_money_on_food_stamps/

[Kathianne]

Ron Paul: Black lawmakers oppose war because they the money for food stamps



Former Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has long been one of the most vociferous opponents of interventionism in American foreign policy, but the libertarian-leaning conservative has some harsh — i.e., racist — words for some of his allies in that fight.

In an interview earlier this month with Lew Rockwell — flagged today by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper — Paul asserted that members of the Congressional Black Caucus oppose military intervention abroad because they’d rather spend funds on food stamps than war.

“I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not — they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here,” Paul told Rockwell.

Paul proceeded to criticize Black Caucus members as ineffective advocates against war, arguing that too many of them voted for sanctions against U.S. adversaries, which Paul said “never get the results that they thought there were going to get.”

audio on site at link - http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/ron_paul_congressional_black_caucus_opposes_war_be cause_they_want_to_spend_money_on_food_stamps/

Remember all those Paulistas that claimed I was wrong about his racism? Heck, that was back on USMB! When I put out some of those 'newsletters' they screamed 'Foul!' Claiming he didn't have anything to do with them, though they carried his name.

[jimnyc]

Remember all those Paulistas that claimed I was wrong about his racism? Heck, that was back on USMB! When I put out some of those 'newsletters' they screamed 'Foul!' Claiming he didn't have anything to do with them, though they carried his name.

I think his true nature peeks through here and there. There was NO doubt in my mind after the letters. None. And he 'could' have said that these folks would rather have the money spent on local causes and such, but he chose to say they prefer the money for food stamps. Is it 'literally' racist words? No. But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying.

And a blast from the past, was just reading this not long ago:

-------

Paul helped form the Ron Paul & Associates corporation in 1984, and the now-defunct company, for which he served as president, began publishing newsletters the following year. The monthly publications included Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Columnist Jonathan Chait noted in a recent column for New York magazine that statements of racist paranoia appeared regularly in Paul’s newsletters, representing a “consistent ideological theme.”

Many of the derogatory comments came from a 1992 commentary in the Political Report titled “A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism.” The article blames African American men for the L.A. riots, saying, “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

Another passage from the article tries to explain how the tumult finally ended, saying, “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.” The writer gives no credit to police, state troopers or soldiers from the National Guard and Army and the Marines who helped end the chaos.

That wasn’t an isolated incident with Paul’s newsletters. A separate article from the Survival Report said, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

The Paul publications also criticized homosexuals, saying gays “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” referring to AIDS.

The articles contain no bylines and no signatures, just Ron Paul’s name in giant letters on the publications’ mastheads. This leaves a tiny bit of wiggle room for the Texas congressman to defend himself. That’s what he’s done, telling the media he has “no idea” how the inflammatory comments made it into print.

“I honestly do not know who wrote those things,” he told CNN in January 2008.

Paul has compared himself to a major publisher who had little time to review every article that went to press, even though his newsletters came out monthly — and were thin at that. He claims he was too busy practicing medicine and giving speeches across the country to pay attention to the bulletins.

“It’s been rehashed for a long time, and it’s coming up now for political reasons,” Paul told CNN in January 2008. “Everybody in my district knows I didn’t write them, and I don’t speak like that. Nobody has ever heard me say anything like that.”

Certain passages in the newsletters suggest that Paul, or at least someone using his persona, wrote for the publications. One article from October 1992 refers to the congressman’s hometown, saying, “even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense, for the animals are coming.”

In an article earlier that year, the author — writing in the first person — announced his decision to chair the economic advisory committee for Pat Buchanan’s presidential bid, a post Paul took up at the time.

The libertarian magazine Reason cited an anonymous source close to the 2008 Paul campaign attributing much of the content from Political Report to Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian economics center.

Rockwell, whose name appears on the newsletters under the title of contributing editor, told the New Republic that he did not write the controversial articles. He said that there were “seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages” during his tenure with the publishing outfit.

As for Paul’s comments about Rosa Parks, the candidate didn’t show much love for his “hero” when he voted against a measure to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the civil rights icon in 1999. To be fair, he opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.

As for King, a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter referred to the civil rights leader as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours.”

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

Paul offers implausible explanations for why so many derogatory statements made it into his publications, insisting he knew nothing about them. It’s hard to believe that a man who wants to oversee the entire U.S. government — albeit a smaller version — would provide zero oversight of his publications, or even bother to read them from time to time.

The Texas congressman has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them. He earns three Pinocchios for failing to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

[jimnyc]

Bottom line, people should be THRILLED that this nutter didn't make it past the primaries.

[Anton Chigurh]

Bottom line, people should be THRILLED that this nutter didn't make it past the primaries.But even MORE thrilled he did keep his one campaign promise I paid any attention to - that he would RESIGN from Congress forever.

Good riddance. Now if we could just get his equally idiotic, kinky-haired fruit loop son to follow suit.

[revelarts]

But but but but Ted Nuegent is not really a racist he just telling the -truth- :laugh:
At least by many folks standard here, and he's said far worse than Paul.

and has been defended for remarks that are outright "racist". And then believed when he gave his 'explanations' WHY he used such language. He was not only believed but some were a bit put out that everyone didn't buy his --clear and reasonable-- use of the language.:rolleyes:

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."

Look if people want stand by the idea that what Ron Paul said here was pure racist and letting his white sheet show. and folks on this board are so ready to defend Black people from racism:eek:. OK. fine. BUT Lets stand there and Put EVERYONE on the same line.

so when we look back at others here who have said "blacks" are ... fill in the blank... thugs, criminals, on welfare, don't want to work, deserve to be SHOT... etc etc.. what is that?

Jim if you or others are ready to admit that the people who make such statements are in fact racist to uses that language here in the past 10 months or so, then fine.

Jim, what would you say if Ron Paul ran a message board that allowed a racist humor section that pissed on minorities 99.9% of the time.
Would THAT be a clear indication that he was racist as well? I suspect it would make it to Salon.com as well, with just as much indignation.
However i'm sure some might just consider it "free speech" and say that folks ---should not be so sensitive--

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."


none of this dodging about ---he's a political figure--- crap. The only question here is, is it racist.
you can't pull any of this ---it's racist if Ron Paul does but OK if we do it--- crap. that's pure BS.

you know, Jesus had a parable about straining gnats out of food but swallowing camels. And another about a getting the plank out of your own eye before getting the gnat out of others.

[hjmick]

I miss that little guy with the pie charts... What was his name?


Ross Perot!


That guy was fun...

[Elessar]

Bottom line, people should be THRILLED that this nutter didn't make it past the primaries.
He is a flat-out kook.:laugh:

[Elessar]

But but but but Ted Nuegent is not really a racist he just telling the -truth- :laugh:
At least by many folks standard here, and he's said far worse than Paul.



When did Ted Nuegent try to run for President?


Tick...tick...tick...answer?

[Jeff]

But but but but Ted Nuegent is not really a racist he just telling the -truth- :laugh:
At least by many folks standard here, and he's said far worse than Paul.

and has been defended for remarks that are outright "racist". And then believed when he gave his 'explanations' WHY he used such language. He was not only believed but some were a bit put out that everyone didn't buy his --clear and reasonable-- use of the language.:rolleyes:

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."

Look if people want stand by the idea that what Ron Paul said here was pure racist and letting his white sheet show. and folks on this board are so ready to defend Black people from racism:eek:. OK. fine. BUT Lets stand there and Put EVERYONE on the same line.

so when we look back at others here who have said "blacks" are ... fill in the blank... thugs, criminals, on welfare, don't want to work, deserve to be SHOT... etc etc.. what is that?

Jim if you or others are ready to admit that the people who make such statements are in fact racist to uses that language here in the past 10 months or so, then fine.

Jim, what would you say if Ron Paul ran a message board that allowed a racist humor section that pissed on minorities 99.9% of the time.
Would THAT be a clear indication that he was racist as well? I suspect it would make it to Salon.com as well, with just as much indignation.
However i'm sure some might just consider it "free speech" and say that folks ---should not be so sensitive--

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."


none of this dodging about ---he's a political figure--- crap. The only question here is, is it racist.
you can't pull any of this ---it's racist if Ron Paul does but OK if we do it--- crap. that's pure BS.

you know, Jesus had a parable about straining gnats out of food but swallowing camels. And another about a getting the plank out of your own eye before getting the gnat out of others.

OK Rev I am going to bite, know understand I am not saying you are wrong but besides from calling Obama a sub human Mongral ( which I think he has explained many times ) I am not sure of anything else Ted said that would be seen as racist, again I am not saying you are wrong I am simply asking what it was he has said?

[jimnyc]

OK Rev I am going to bite, know understand I am not saying you are wrong but besides from calling Obama a sub human Mongral ( which I think he has explained many times ) I am not sure of anything else Ted said that would be seen as racist, again I am not saying you are wrong I am simply asking what it was he has said?

Does it really matter? It's like Gabby continually bringing up Bush when someone condemns Obama for something. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Does what Nugent stated somehow make Paul's words more or less racist? Nope. It's just a way for some to deflect, and try to take the racist story away from this raging kook.

Ron Paul is a racist, and a liar since he can't seem to speak the truth about his own words and newsletters. Nothing Nugent or anyone else has stated will change his words or actions, it's nothing more than a deflection, and someone angry that his idol/hero/choice has been exposed for what he truly is.

And yes, Nugent called him a sub-human mongrel. I'll even go as far as to say it IS racist, just for arguments sake. Now, does that change what the old fruit loop stated? Nope, none, nada, not at all.

[jimnyc]

When did Ted Nuegent try to run for President?


Tick...tick...tick...answer?

But, but, but...

Giuliana Rancic made an alleged racist comment during the Oscars red carpet event. I didn't condemn her. Therefore it's ok for Ron Paul to continue talking like he's on too much laughing gas at the dentist! :coffee:

[tailfins]

If giving perfunctory applause during a few of his speeches is the price we pay to avoid a Libertarian candidate on the ballot siphoning votes from Republicans, it's worth it.

[jimnyc]

If giving perfunctory applause during a few of his speeches is the price we pay to avoid a Libertarian candidate on the ballot siphoning votes from Republicans, it's worth it.

I agree that a candidate of ones choice, who meets most of what they believe in, may also have some things that we don't believe in. And sometimes we choose that person still, because overall they still meet our needs the best.

But what if you are a black person. And pieces of evidence build up to show the actual racist side of someone. That would be like me holding my nose and wanting Al Sharpton to represent me.

[revelarts]

When did Ted Nuegent try to run for President?


Tick...tick...tick...answer?

so we only call people racist if they're running for president?
otherwise it's -the truth-
Tick...tick...tick...answer?

[tailfins]

I agree that a candidate of ones choice, who meets most of what they believe in, may also have some things that we don't believe in. And sometimes we choose that person still, because overall they still meet our needs the best.

But what if you are a black person. And pieces of evidence build up to show the actual racist side of someone. That would be like me holding my nose and wanting Al Sharpton to represent me.

Patronizing him is not support. A position of he has the right to speak and be a candidate is hardly an endorsement. His defeat is a message that his ideas don't represent the majority of the GOP.

[jimnyc]

Patronizing him is not support. A position of he has the right to speak and be a candidate is hardly an endorsement. His defeat is a message that his ideas don't represent the majority of the GOP.

My bad, the way I read your last post was that you would still support and vote for such a person.

[revelarts]

Jim says it's a dodge, no, the POINT is racism, calling it out.
it just seems to me that there is a double standard here.

If it's racism that's the problem with Paul then it should not MATTER if he's the president or the janitor. you call a racist a racist right?

You don't say the Janitor is REALLY NOT a racist because he's a janitor. I don't understand the disconnects here.

the outrage voiced in the 1st few post is OVER racism. It's weird to me that low level racist comments forever BRAND Paul as a closet Klansmen. But Ted Nuegents mid Level Racism is not even considered racism.

Do we as -non racist- ALLOW for and give a pass to people who are racist who don't run for president?

Chris Rock isn't running for president and he's been called a racist on the board. no one here voiced defense for him and said "he's not running for president."
And he's never said anything CLOSE to Nuegent or Paul's comments or "newsletters" how does he rate the title? because he's upset that white police are killing unarmed black people? how dare he even consider that. he's racist!:rolleyes:

[tailfins]

My bad, the way I read your last post was that you would still support and vote for such a person.

I forgot that not everyone recognizes corporatespeak; that would be real human beings and not those assimilated by the Borg. The word perfunctory was the lynchpin of my post and is an extremely derogatory term.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/33224/669226-borg_cube_00340.jpg

[jimnyc]

I forgot that not everyone recognizes corporatespeak; that would be real human beings and not those assimilated by the Borg. The word perfunctory was the lynchpin of my post and is an extremely derogatory term.


The key I missed was "avoid". In my rush reading of your post, I thought you were stating that you would hold your nose so long as the libertarian candidate got in. My bad.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Congressional Black Caucus is itself a racist group!
Any that deny that glaring fact are either ignorant, gullible and/or just plain stupid..

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul or his son but truth is the CBC would prefer billions go to social causes than war and they'd direct it primarily to aid as many black faces as possible. They are openly racist! Fact.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Jim says it's a dodge, no, the POINT is racism, calling it out.

Many don't know the definition of racism. Case in point:


Congressional Black Caucus is itself a racist group!
Any that deny that glaring fact are either ignorant, gullible and/or just plain stupid..

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul or his son but truth is the CBC would prefer billions go to social causes than war and they'd direct it primarily to aid as many black faces as possible. They are openly racist! Fact.. -Tyr

:(

[jimnyc]

Many don't know the definition of racism. Case in point:

Contrary to your hard lined definition, things like what Ron Paul states are racist. Not ALL words HAVE to mean one thinks one race is superior to another to be racist. Hell, the blogosphere is going nuts right now about Rancic stating a girl probably smells like weed, because she changed her hair to dreadlocks. Stereotypes and such are considered racist. Sure, the hard lined stance can be that one must believe superiority. Paul's newsletters have been referred to as "racist" by many for a long, long time. The content of the newsletters clearly back that up (whether he wrote/condoned doesn't matter). I don't think it would be fair to state the content was not racist. Hell, if that were the case, then nearly 99% of racist issues that have occurred in the past 20 years wouldn't be racism/racist at all.

[jimnyc]

Congressional Black Caucus is itself a racist group!

Someone needs to start an 'actual' congressional white caucus, to stand up solely for white issues. I'm sure that won't be considered racist. And then start the WET, the white entertainment channel. No one will care about that, as it's not racist, they'll just show programs of solely white folks. And then start the NAAWP. When these things start popping up for real, what would the reaction be?

[fj1200]

Contrary to your hard lined definition, things like what Ron Paul states are racist. Not ALL words HAVE to mean one thinks one race is superior to another to be racist. Hell, the blogosphere is going nuts right now about Rancic stating a girl probably smells like weed, because she changed her hair to dreadlocks. Stereotypes and such are considered racist. Sure, the hard lined stance can be that one must believe superiority. Paul's newsletters have been referred to as "racist" by many for a long, long time. The content of the newsletters clearly back that up (whether he wrote/condoned doesn't matter). I don't think it would be fair to state the content was not racist. Hell, if that were the case, then nearly 99% of racist issues that have occurred in the past 20 years wouldn't be racism/racist at all.

I don't have a hard-line definition; I have an actual definition not the one that's been bought into by so many. As example the OP. The implication is that the CBC had that view because they want SNAP to go to blacks but I can read it and guess that they're socialists. More whites get SNAP than blacks. Just because something has been called racist for so long doesn't mean that it's actually racism. Racists are racists, those who stereotype might be racist, bigots engage in bigotry, etc.

But rev's point was that we are so quick to call out "racism" on the one hand but don't recognize it on the other. "I like Nugent so he's not a racist but I don't like Paul because he's a racist." Makes no sense.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:(
Your massive intellect clearly shown with that great and enlightened reply..:laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Someone needs to start an 'actual' congressional white caucus, to stand up solely for white issues. I'm sure that won't be considered racist. And then start the WET, the white entertainment channel. No one will care about that, as it's not racist, they'll just show programs of solely white folks. And then start the NAAWP. When these things start popping up for real, what would the reaction be?

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DAT WOOD BEZ RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only blacks can be as damn racist as they want and not be called on it. Its the leftist/liberal formula--victims are never the bad guys!
Victims are what they use to justify their stupidity and insane PCness, unjust laws/social policies. Just watch how fj argues for clues.- ;) --Tyr

[fj1200]

Your massive intellect clearly shown with that great and enlightened reply..:laugh:--Tyr

I wasn't replying to you. Your words are merely sad.

[fj1200]

Just watch how fj argues for clues.

Yes, with intelligence, logic, and actual thought. I don't expect you to hang to long.

[revelarts]

... truth is the CBC would prefer billions go to social causes than war and they'd direct it primarily to aid as many black faces as possible. They are openly racist! Fact.. -Tyr

So Tyr has repeated the exact same thing and more than Paul sooo is Tyr a "racist".

Jim, Kathianne, Elessar

tick tick tick answer?

Tyr do you think what Ron Paul said shows he's a racist?

[jimnyc]

But rev's point was that we are so quick to call out "racism" on the one hand but don't recognize it on the other. "I like Nugent so he's not a racist but I don't like Paul because he's a racist." Makes no sense.

Calling out hypocrisy might be one thing - but it changes NOTHING about what Ron Paul said. Each case should be looked at on an individual basis. It's sometimes easier for folks to bring in other cases and point out opinions between differences - but that really doesn't do anything to address what the thread is actually about. It's a deflection, and/or a 'gotcha' against someone is all it is. Luckily for me, he asked I place him on ignore, so I don't have to see the majority of sidestepping, only what's quoted.

[fj1200]

Calling out hypocrisy might be one thing - but it changes NOTHING about what Ron Paul said. Each case should be looked at on an individual basis. It's sometimes easier for folks to bring in other cases and point out opinions between differences - but that really doesn't do anything to address what the thread is actually about. It's a deflection, and/or a 'gotcha' against someone is all it is. Luckily for me, he asked I place him on ignore, so I don't have to see the majority of sidestepping, only what's quoted.

I'm confused, what did he say that was racist? I usually don't accept a premise put forth by Salon.com of all places... they's lefties.

And who is on ignore? Rev?

[jimnyc]

I'm confused, what did he say that was racist? I usually don't accept a premise put forth by Salon.com of all places... they's lefties.

And who is on ignore? Rev?

Let me ask you this - if someone calls a black person a nigger - is that racist? The word has nothing to do with superiority...

And yes, Rev.

[fj1200]

Let me ask you this - if someone calls a black person a nigger - is that racist? The word has nothing to do with superiority...

And yes, Rev.

Bad owner for ignoring... bad. :scared: j/k

NFL Player: "What up my N..." Doesn't seem to be racist.
KKK Rally Attendee: He's nothing but a N..." Sounds racist to me.

The word can have everything to do with superiority. Racism is a belief and it's hard to prove a belief other than through words and the context those words are used in?

[jimnyc]

Bad owner for ignoring... bad. :scared: j/k

NFL Player: "What up my N..." Doesn't seem to be racist.
KKK Rally Attendee: He's nothing but a N..." Sounds racist to me.

The word can have everything to do with superiority. Racism is a belief and it's hard to prove a belief other than through words and the context those words are used in?

So you're saying it's NOT only when one espouses claims of one race being superior to another?

[jimnyc]

Bad owner for ignoring... bad. :scared: j/k

Simply granted a request was all.

[revelarts]

(Jim didn't like my jokes, and using fake quotes, --as other have done here since and he's had no objection to becaaaause ???---. But he asked me --as a fellow member- to change the way i do things. I suggested he put me on ignore if my jokes seemed offensive to him.
So he did. )
............


But i'll make the issue of this thread clearer with quotes


...I think his true nature peeks through here and there. There was NO doubt in my mind after the letters. None. And he 'could' have said that these folks would rather have the money spent on local causes and such, but he chose to say they prefer the money for food stamps. Is it 'literally' racist words? No. But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=684122#post684122)
NOWHERE is subhuman mongrel considered to be racist/racism. And insult? Absolutely. But good luck proving racism out of words that have nothing to do with race.




But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying.

Another thing - which is it that was so offensive, and so racist - "subhuman" or "mongrel". At first, when I read stories, it was the mongrel portion, hence me and so many others finding video of Obama stating the same. Then it was the subhuman part, now back to mongrel again. Just a snippet from this article (which I think altogether is a good article, but similar to our already going on discussion...)
Taylor Budowich, executive director of Tea Party Express, said he is pleased that Nugent apologized for the "mongrel" remark and realized that inflammatory comments distract from his core message. He noted, however, that Nugent has support because he talks about the issues his tea party group cares about, including reducing the size of government and "restoring America" after being "hurt by this administration and past administrations."



And there are many others that I have read similarly, that people were offended by the mongrel portion. Regardless, funny that many say it's racist, and yet so many can't even agree on which portion was the supposed racist part!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44932-Rand-Paul-Blasts-Ted-Nugent-And-Says-He-Should-Apologize-For-Calling-Obama-A-Subhum&p=684249#post684249
What is it he said about Obama and being a subhuman mongrel made you say it's based on virtue of race, and not just that he can't stand the man, as I would say if saying it to Harry Reid, and it wouldn't be racist?

"true nature peeks through"?
"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."

How is that we can see Paul's TRUE Racist NATURE from a "food stamp" quote but have a hard time seeing "subhuman mongel" quotes as racist?
and spend pages defending those words and the Man.

it's not a deflection it's a clarification. Both statements are in fact racist. But one is far worse than the other. But one's comments are defended/justified/rationalized/ but the other person is condemned and scorned his words putting him outside of the pale of civil and sane discourse. Even when he's not running for office anymore and is just a private citizen. The SAME as Neugent.

so yep is hypocritical BS to bring up Ron Paul the private citizens and claim some moral OUTRAGE over his statements which only the "dishonest" and "naive" would not understand as racist.


But Jim does go on and say this... and Jeff this answers your question


OK Rev I am going to bite, know understand I am not saying you are wrong but besides from calling Obama a sub human Mongral ( which I think he has explained many times ) I am not sure of anything else Ted said that would be seen as racist, again I am not saying you are wrong I am simply asking what it was he has said?


I suppose his referring to Obama as a chimpanzee (in the same interview) wasn't either.
Ok, admittedly I was confused about certain things, so let me backtrack a tad... YES, undoubtedly, calling Obama a chimpanzee is racist, no 2 ways about that one. I wasn't aware and had to search further - which lead me back to DS72's comments, which I ran with when reading.
Thing is, Nugent DID NOT say these things at a political rally, it was all said in an interview with "guns.com". If he were on a political stage, then it's a little different. It's still racist, the chimp part, but he did so as Ted Nugent the idiot entertainer, not as Ted Nugent, speaking for a politician at the time. And yes, I think that makes a difference. Not in whether it's racist or not, which it is, but is it a political statement on stage?

but I still have yet to read anyone here say that "Neugent is a Racist" Jeff you told me He is NOT.
but Jim says quote "...Ron Paul is a Racist and a Liar...". and Jeff you agreed with that it looks like.


If we are going to condemn racist private citizens lets be honest and do it across the board.
Any threads titled "More from the racist Ted Nuegent" coming up from anyone?

[Kathianne]

I don't like racists, in fact I pretty much have a problem with those that broadly paint 'all' of any group with their brushes.

When I have time and inclination, I'll take some effort to address the issues behind their feelings.

OTOH, I don't think a racist or xxxphobe on a messageboard is a dire threat. Nor do I care about a singer, writer, etc., going off on some group. I choose not to listen to them or read them. Actors opinion hold no sway, for the reason that most of them don't have the ability to put thoughts and mouth together without a writer.

However when there's a chance that one of these folks is going to run for elected office, where they will swear to uphold the COTUS, for ALL citizens, then yeah, I take their words and actions seriously. Oh that goes for many in the Black Caucus too, some are racists, without a doubt. I don't care if it's for the post of city council, US Congressmen or POTUS.

[fj1200]

So you're saying it's NOT only when one espouses claims of one race being superior to another?

As I said it's a belief and if one doesn't outright espouse it then what's left is inferring from their words. From Paul's words I infer that he doesn't like Socialists because they were disingenuous in their reasoning for being anti-war. Do you agree with salon.com's implication?

[revelarts]

I don't like racists, in fact I pretty much have a problem with those that broadly paint 'all' of any group with their brushes.

When I have time and inclination, I'll take some effort to address the issues behind their feelings.

OTOH, I don't think a racist or xxxphobe on a messageboard is a dire threat. Nor do I care about a singer, writer, etc., going off on some group. I choose not to listen to them or read them. Actors opinion hold no sway, for the reason that most of them don't have the ability to put thoughts and mouth together without a writer.

However when there's a chance that one of these folks is going to run for elected office, where they will swear to uphold the COTUS, for ALL citizens, then yeah, I take their words and actions seriously. Oh that goes for many in the Black Caucus too, some are racists, without a doubt. I don't care if it's for the post of city council, US Congressmen or POTUS.

Kathianne that's fine,
and you haven't spent pages elsewhere defending Nuegent as some have.
And of course I don't like racist BS either. From either party. but as I see it we Americans have a very hard time seeing racism without bias. And condemnations come fast an heavy over the "racism" when folks we don't like do it. If it's UNNAMED black Caucus members for UNNAMED racist offenses, or Jesse Jackson or Sharpton or Paul. it seems the outrage is HARSH and uncompromising.

But mention it in others like Nuegent or politicains like Pat Buchanon (who you have condemned as well) or Bill O'Riley, or police forces that have clear record of killing blacks and racial comments, and many people on the right RUSH IN to defend them. And give every benny of the doubt why it's not racist.
Rick Perry said that Ted Neugent's Statements weren't really racist either and he regularly used a camp called "Ni----head" for friends and family. No one here posted outrage over either. No one here questioned if he was racist or fit to run the country because when looking at those incidents "only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying". Nope, Perry, was defended or it was ignored.

and when Newt Gingrich called Obama “The greatest food stamp President in American history” No one started a "More from the racist Newt Gingrich" thread.
No ones saying how wonderful it is that the kook Newt didn't get elected ..because he's so racist.
The same words but silence all around.

[Kathianne]

I believe those that are racist/xxxphobes are for the most part coming from ignorance/fear/superiority/victimhood.

I suppose living near Chicago for most of my life, having an uncle on the CPD during the Civil Rights Riots and 67 Convention and the fixed feature of Jesse Jackson extorting money and jobs of major corporations in and around Chicago has made me pretty much tone deaf to black leaders and reactionary whites as well.

OTOH, I grew up in a 'progressive' home regarding race and helping the poor, while the parents still voted GOP for the most part. LOL! I guess that's the fact of life in an Irish Catholic family with an uncle/priest at the 'head.' Yes, cops, politicians, priests that was my family. Put in that I grew up in a German-Lutheran town, where anti-Catholicism was the norm, one becomes rather eclectic in their causes.

[Elessar]

so we only call people racist if they're running for president?
otherwise it's -the truth-
Tick...tick...tick...answer?

Answer: No. I inferred nothing of the sort; but since you deflected off Ron Paul's behavior
I replied thusly.

And Truth is a relative term to the person preaching it that might not be seen as such
by those listening to them or reading them. My "truth" may not necessarily be your "truth".

[revelarts]

...

And Truth is a relative term to the person preaching it that might not be seen as such
by those listening to them or reading them. My "truth" may not necessarily be your "truth".

now that is an interesting topic, and could/should be taken up In a separate thread.

I say ...and the dictionary says... truth and facts and reality are synonyms.
It's only modern relativist who've tried to redefine the word truth to suit themselves or their particular opinions.

But truth is what it is. whether anyone thinks/agrees it's real or not.

[jimnyc]

As I said it's a belief and if one doesn't outright espouse it then what's left is inferring from their words. From Paul's words I infer that he doesn't like Socialists because they were disingenuous in their reasoning for being anti-war. Do you agree with salon.com's implication?

Yes, I do.

[jimnyc]

Answer: No. I inferred nothing of the sort; but since you deflected off Ron Paul's behavior
I replied thusly.

Bingo, and what I said from the get go. Some would rather deflect and go off on tangents about other things. Like I said, it's a game, to play 'gotcha' by some and talk about all kinds of other things - other than the actual subject.

[Perianne]

I don't like racists, in fact I pretty much have a problem with those that broadly paint 'all' of any group with their brushes.

When I have time and inclination, I'll take some effort to address the issues behind their feelings.


Kathianne, I would like to debate you on this part of your post. Not a formal debate, but a discussion. If I were to start a thread, would you be willing to participate?

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, I would like to debate you on this part of your post. Not a formal debate, but a discussion. If I were to start a thread, would you be willing to participate?
No. Feel free to post on the thread, I'll respond or not.

[fj1200]

Yes, I do.

OK, not quite sure what was racist about it. It was characterized as "harsh - i.e. racist." It falls into their trap as declaring any sort of criticism of blacks as racist IMO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So Tyr has repeated the exact same thing and more than Paul sooo is Tyr a "racist".

Jim, Kathianne, Elessar

tick tick tick answer?

Tyr do you think what Ron Paul said shows he's a racist?

A statement of fact is not racist. Truth is not racist. I have not a care if Paul is racist or not. I made my comments about the Congressional Black Caucus which is an openly racist body.
I do not give a damn who does or does not call me racist when its me presenting a fact.
Only a moron would declare that the Congressional Black Caucus is not a racist body!

We whites can not have a Miss White America beauty pageant but no problem if having a Miss Black America beauty pageant. Same thing with BET but racist if we have WET.
The ffing double standard in this is racist as hell. How about that American Negro College fund?
Where are the tax free donations to an American Caucasian College fund?
There tons more examples, double standard racism openly heralded as enlightenment. FF THAT!-Tyr

[jimnyc]

OK, not quite sure what was racist about it. It was characterized as "harsh - i.e. racist." It falls into their trap as declaring any sort of criticism of blacks as racist IMO.

Can you name the libertarians that bypass war in favor of food stamps? Anti-war groups that do this? And the BLACK caucus?

Once I see a list of these libertarians and groups more interested in food stamps, then I'll believe 'maybe' his comments about the black caucus weren't racist in nature. But simply stating other groups (which I don't even think exist in the context he states) doesn't make it less racist. He is stating these folks are more interested in food stamps than fighting wars. He could have stated they didn't want to be involved, or they want money for local causes, but he chose food stamps.

Before we go further, I think we need a background on these libertarian and other groups that have done what he states. I'm going to peek around right now. If anyone else has congressional citations and such, showing that these groups (outside the black caucus) have done what he states, we'll go from there).

And outside of that search, this man, IMO, was a proven racist prior to this. So this just adds to it, IMO.

Unless of course we don't believe the following to be racist either.

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense... for the animals are coming."[12] Another newsletter suggested that black activists who wanted to rename New York City after Martin Luther King, Jr. should instead rename it "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis."

Additionally, and if these weren't his newsletters, then why do these letters sound an awful lot like he was in first person mode...

A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman.

[tailfins]

So Tyr has repeated the exact same thing and more than Paul sooo is Tyr a "racist".

Jim, Kathianne, Elessar

tick tick tick answer?

Tyr do you think what Ron Paul said shows he's a racist?

Being a racist doesn't bother me until it creates a liability. People can be card carrying KKK members for all I care until there's a cost. If you're going to get the company I work for sued or cost my party an election, then it's a problem.

[Jeff]

But but but but Ted Nuegent is not really a racist he just telling the -truth- :laugh:
At least by many folks standard here, and he's said far worse than Paul.

and has been defended for remarks that are outright "racist". And then believed when he gave his 'explanations' WHY he used such language. He was not only believed but some were a bit put out that everyone didn't buy his --clear and reasonable-- use of the language.:rolleyes:

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."

Look if people want stand by the idea that what Ron Paul said here was pure racist and letting his white sheet show. and folks on this board are so ready to defend Black people from racism:eek:. OK. fine. BUT Lets stand there and Put EVERYONE on the same line.

so when we look back at others here who have said "blacks" are ... fill in the blank... thugs, criminals, on welfare, don't want to work, deserve to be SHOT... etc etc.. what is that?

Jim if you or others are ready to admit that the people who make such statements are in fact racist to uses that language here in the past 10 months or so, then fine.

Jim, what would you say if Ron Paul ran a message board that allowed a racist humor section that pissed on minorities 99.9% of the time.
Would THAT be a clear indication that he was racist as well? I suspect it would make it to Salon.com as well, with just as much indignation.
However i'm sure some might just consider it "free speech" and say that folks ---should not be so sensitive--

"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."


none of this dodging about ---he's a political figure--- crap. The only question here is, is it racist.
you can't pull any of this ---it's racist if Ron Paul does but OK if we do it--- crap. that's pure BS.

you know, Jesus had a parable about straining gnats out of food but swallowing camels. And another about a getting the plank out of your own eye before getting the gnat out of others.


OK Rev I am going to bite, know understand I am not saying you are wrong but besides from calling Obama a sub human Mongral ( which I think he has explained many times ) I am not sure of anything else Ted said that would be seen as racist, again I am not saying you are wrong I am simply asking what it was he has said?

OK I see you are above answering my question, that is fine, it shows me exactly what you are. As I said calling that lying POS in the WH a Sub Human Mongral wasn't racist, hell Obama is the one pushing for the race divide, I would of thought more of Ted if he called a spade a spade and just spit out exactly what obama is.

[jimnyc]

OK I see you are above answering my question, that is fine, it shows me exactly what you are. As I said calling that lying POS in the WH a Sub Human Mongral wasn't racist, hell Obama is the one pushing for the race divide, I would of thought more of Ted if he called a spade a spade and just spit out exactly what obama is.

He would prefer to rant about comparisons than acknowledge the racism from one of his heroes. Pull back many posts from the past, rather than acknowledge and discuss what's posted here. Again, it's the gotcha game, and it only serves to deflect away from the actual discussion. And again, even if entertained and discussed, it STILL doesn't change anything at all about Ron Paul's words.

What one person's opinion was on Nugent won't matter. The idea is that unless you condemned him, you're not allowed to then condemn Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

[Jeff]

He would prefer to rant about comparisons than acknowledge the racism from one of his heroes. Pull back many posts from the past, rather than acknowledge and discuss what's posted here. Again, it's the gotcha game, and it only serves to deflect away from the actual discussion. And again, even if entertained and discussed, it STILL doesn't change anything at all about Ron Paul's words.

What one person's opinion was on Nugent won't matter. The idea is that unless you condemned him, you're not allowed to then condemn Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

Here was my point, if Ted is a Racist because he uttered the words Sub Human Mongral well than is there any one of us in anger that hasn't blurted out a racist slur and if so does that make us all racist ? Obama has put himself in the publics eye and he has proven time and time again not only is he in office to punish America he wished to destroy any good race relations we have had in the past, he has pushed back race relations at least 30 years, so to call someone a racist just because they skirted around with a racist saying, well I think I may be looking in the mirror if I was Rev and wondering how the heck I have become so racist.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wasn't replying to you. Your words are merely sad.

Yes you were replying to me or else about me. You quoted me before placing that symbolic display. Better go check your post doofus or will you force me to show your error?

I am sad , eh? For having integrity, honor and patriotism...while you are what for your appeasing ways? A centrist, a moderate , or a enlightened liberal?
You may fool some here but Hoss--will be a damn cold day in Hell before you can ever fool me!
I've been around the block a few thousand times and dealt with the dregs of humanity decades ago.
Hell, I knew more about people's character by age 30 than you'll ever know if you live to be a 120 years old.

You know, when you get up early- "before the crack of dawn" to be the early bird getting the worms -
well all those empty holes you passed by that once had worms but have no more, that is because around midnight this early bird (ME) ventured forth and stole them.--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He would prefer to rant about comparisons than acknowledge the racism from one of his heroes. Pull back many posts from the past, rather than acknowledge and discuss what's posted here. Again, it's the gotcha game, and it only serves to deflect away from the actual discussion. And again, even if entertained and discussed, it STILL doesn't change anything at all about Ron Paul's words.

What one person's opinion was on Nugent won't matter. The idea is that unless you condemned him, you're not allowed to then condemn Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

Back when all this was current and new I looked into it. As my memory serves, yes Ron Paul
can only be judged to have been racist in his actions. However for the Rev to try to set a standard comparing Paul's comments to Nugent's comments is stupidity on parade and here is why.
Nugent spoke directly about an individual, a politician-the Obama-- he did not speak of his race but instead he spoke of the man's character, of the man's actions. Rev in that case wants to use the every handy "race card" to hit both men-Paul and Nugent. And why not--that's how the PC media/dems/libs use it ? Problem is the two men made entirely different quotes for entirely different reasons.

Nugent told the TRUTH--thus no racism. The game these chumps want played is that no truth , if it is negative, can ever be said about blacks... To hell with that liberal stupidity and special preferred status! This man will never play any of that shit!!

Here are two TRUTHS that's called racism every time they are presented.
Blacks are more prone to violence than are whites. Blacks are more likely to engage in crime than are whites. FBI stats back up both as being verified facts, but Rev and others scream both comments are racist.
FACTS ARE TRUTH, THUS THEY ARE NOT RACIST. .. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Can you name the libertarians that bypass war in favor of food stamps? Anti-war groups that do this? And the BLACK caucus?

Once I see a list of these libertarians and groups more interested in food stamps, then I'll believe 'maybe' his comments about the black caucus weren't racist in nature. But simply stating other groups (which I don't even think exist in the context he states) doesn't make it less racist. He is stating these folks are more interested in food stamps than fighting wars. He could have stated they didn't want to be involved, or they want money for local causes, but he chose food stamps.

Before we go further, I think we need a background on these libertarian and other groups that have done what he states. I'm going to peek around right now. If anyone else has congressional citations and such, showing that these groups (outside the black caucus) have done what he states, we'll go from there).

And outside of that search, this man, IMO, was a proven racist prior to this. So this just adds to it, IMO.

He didn't say blacks, he said the CBC. There are no Libertarians in Congress so I assume he's referring to the other Republicans who voted against the Iraq War. But either way the question has no bearing on the words quoted in the OP. They don't show any racism and buying into salon.com's premise is ridiculous IMO if you have ever bristled at any Republican being branded a racist for merely criticizing BO.

IMO he called them out for being disingenuous. For opposing war not because they were opposed to war but rather for domestic issues.


Unless of course we don't believe the following to be racist either.

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense... for the animals are coming."[12] Another newsletter suggested that black activists who wanted to rename New York City after Martin Luther King, Jr. should instead rename it "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis."

Additionally, and if these weren't his newsletters, then why do these letters sound an awful lot like he was in first person mode...

A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman.

Are you suggesting no one else can write for him in the first person? If he didn't write those letters then he is an awful manager and shouldn't have been considered to be POTUS. But let's assume he wrote them; can he not change his beliefs? He may have been a raging racist. Besides those newsletters aren't any different than what is bandied around here on occasion.

[fj1200]

Yes you were replying to me or else about me. You quoted me before placing that symbolic display. Better go check your post doofus or will you force me to show your error?

I know exactly what I posted. Continue with your rant.


Here are two TRUTHS that's called racism every time they are presented.
Blacks are more prone to violence than are whites. Blacks are more likely to engage in crime than are whites. FBI stats back up both as being verified facts, but Rev and others scream both comments are racist.
FACTS ARE TRUTH, THUS THEY ARE NOT RACIST. .. --Tyr

:facepalm99: This ignorant prattle again? Spout racism and claim no racism all in the same post.

[jimnyc]

He didn't say blacks, he said the CBC. There are no Libertarians in Congress so I assume he's referring to the other Republicans who voted against the Iraq War. But either way the question has no bearing on the words quoted in the OP. They don't show any racism and buying into salon.com's premise is ridiculous IMO if you have ever bristled at any Republican being branded a racist for merely criticizing BO.

IMO he called them out for being disingenuous. For opposing war not because they were opposed to war but rather for domestic issues.

Other republicans who voted against the war - they did so so - so that the money can be used for food stamps?


Are you suggesting no one else can write for him in the first person? If he didn't write those letters then he is an awful manager and shouldn't have been considered to be POTUS. But let's assume he wrote them; can he not change his beliefs? He may have been a raging racist. Besides those newsletters aren't any different than what is bandied around here on occasion.

We can discuss him changing his beliefs when he decides to ante up for what he wrote, or at the very least knew about. I don't buy that it wasn't him, personally. One who lies about it for so long is hiding something, and he's trying to hide his racism.

[revelarts]

OK I see you are above answering my question, that is fine, it shows me exactly what you are. As I said calling that lying POS in the WH a Sub Human Mongral wasn't racist, hell Obama is the one pushing for the race divide, I would of thought more of Ted if he called a spade a spade and just spit out exactly what obama is.

Jeff I answered your question in this post, you must have missed it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48772-More-from-the-racist-Ron-Paul&p=725287#post725287

[fj1200]

Other republicans who voted against the war - they did so so - so that the money can be used for food stamps?


We can discuss him changing his beliefs when he decides to ante up for what he wrote, or at the very least knew about. I don't buy that it wasn't him, personally. One who lies about it for so long is hiding something, and he's trying to hide his racism.

The former? I have no idea why that matters. The Republicans aren't Socialists... I can't vouch for Lincoln Chafee though.

The latter? I think he has stated he doesn't know who wrote it. It's not completely unbelievable that pre-internet something could be published under someone's name and them not knowing about it. Those newsletters contain some bad stuff.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[Q
UOTE=fj1200;725386]I know exactly what I posted. Continue with your rant.



Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

Congressional Black Caucus is itself a racist group!
Any that deny that glaring fact are either ignorant, gullible and/or just plain stupid..

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul or his son but truth is the CBC would prefer billions go to social causes than war and they'd direct it primarily to aid as many black faces as possible. They are openly racist! Fact.. -Tyr




:facepalm99: This ignorant prattle again? Spout racism and claim no racism all in the same post.[/QUOTE]

That is a lie, here is your post and the quote you used of mine. Then immediately after that quote you applied your brilliant reply.



fj1200 is online now
The one true Thatcherite
Join Date:Aug 2008Location:In your headPosts:14,520Thanks:785Thanked 817 Times in 563 Posts Rep Power:2597828


Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post

Jim says it's a dodge, no, the POINT is racism, calling it out.
Many don't know the definition of racism. Case in point:


Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

Congressional Black Caucus is itself a racist group!
Any that deny that glaring fact are either ignorant, gullible and/or just plain stupid..

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul or his son but truth is the CBC would prefer billions go to social causes than war and they'd direct it primarily to aid as many black faces as possible. They are openly racist! Fact.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

That is a lie, here is your post and the quote you used of mine. Then immediately after that quote you applied your brilliant reply.

Was that supposed to be intelligible?

[jimnyc]

The former? I have no idea why that matters. The Republicans aren't Socialists... I can't vouch for Lincoln Chafee though.

It matters because he specifically stated that they would prefer the money to go towards food stamps. I'd like some backup of who these folks are is all.


The latter? I think he has stated he doesn't know who wrote it. It's not completely unbelievable that pre-internet something could be published under someone's name and them not knowing about it. Those newsletters contain some bad stuff.

It's easier for him to deny any responsibility than admit racism. I don't believe his innocence on the issue for a single second. And someone else, using personal anecdotes, under his name, and he knew nothing about it. Others are welcome to believe his denials, I don't buy it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Was that supposed to be intelligible?
Would be to any honest person but seeing how it is you, then no.
Are you not capable of remembering or even looking back at your own posts?
You quoted me then made your reply. Later you denied that you addressed me or even referenced me.
I can not fathom for sure if you are that dishonest, that damn dense or just that crazy..
I do know that you are a muslim apologist and now suspect with just cause that you are actually a muslim!---Tyr

[fj1200]

It matters because he specifically stated that they would prefer the money to go towards food stamps. I'd like some backup of who these folks are is all.

:confused: Do only black people get food stamps? And what folks? The ones who were against the war? Apparently there were 6 Representatives and 1 Senator who opposed the Iraq War in 2002.


It's easier for him to deny any responsibility than admit racism. I don't believe his innocence on the issue for a single second. And someone else, using personal anecdotes, under his name, and he knew nothing about it. Others are welcome to believe his denials, I don't buy it.

OK. It's no reason to make a stretch here and accept the premise of known lefties. :poke:

[fj1200]

Would be to any honest person but seeing how it is you, then no.
Are you not capable of remembering or even looking back at your own posts?
You quoted me then made your reply. Later you denied that you addressed me or even referenced me.
I can not fathom for sure if you are that dishonest, that damn dense or just that crazy..

Getting your facts straight would make you look less foolish. I wasn't replying to you, I was making a commentary on your disgusting words.


I wasn't replying to you. Your words are merely sad.


I do know that you are a muslim apologist and now suspect with just cause that you are actually a muslim!---Tyr

:laugh: Way to double down on stupid.

[jimnyc]

:confused: Do only black people get food stamps? And what folks? The ones who were against the war? Apparently there were 6 Representatives and 1 Senator who opposed the Iraq War in 2002.

That's a good question - which leads me to wonder why he specifically called out the black caucus then - who never stated anything at all about money for Iraq and food stamps. So where is the old kook getting his info from, thin air?


OK. It's no reason to make a stretch here and accept the premise of known lefties. :poke:

I honestly don't know what you mean here. I don't let anyone decide for me. My decision was based on the facts solely.

[fj1200]

That's a good question - which leads me to wonder why he specifically called out the black caucus then - who never stated anything at all about money for Iraq and food stamps. So where is the old kook getting his info from, thin air?

Probably because Congress critters know, and talk to, other Congress critters.


I honestly don't know what you mean here. I don't let anyone decide for me. My decision was based on the facts solely.

If the author hadn't inserted, "i.e. racist," would you have started the thread? This is the same story that has been posted a million times since BO came on the scene, just insert a different Republican name and a different criticism. Cut and paste. That's my problem with it.

[revelarts]

OK I see you are above answering my question, that is fine, it shows me exactly what you are. As I said calling that lying POS in the WH a Sub Human Mongral wasn't racist, hell Obama is the one pushing for the race divide, I would of thought more of Ted if he called a spade a spade and just spit out exactly what obama is.

Jeff I answered your question in this post, you must have missed it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...287#post725287 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48772-More-from-the-racist-Ron-Paul&p=725287#post725287)

[jimnyc]

Probably because Congress critters know, and talk to, other Congress critters.

Sorry, not a single ounce of evidence to even remotely back that up, nor that they voted against had anything at all to do with food stamps.


If the author hadn't inserted, "i.e. racist," would you have started the thread? This is the same story that has been posted a million times since BO came on the scene, just insert a different Republican name and a different criticism. Cut and paste. That's my problem with it.

If I had solely heard his words, absolutely. And I'm far from the only one seeing this, as the media right now are all jumping on this, including mainstream.

[fj1200]

Sorry, not a single ounce of evidence to even remotely back that up, nor that they voted against had anything at all to do with food stamps.

If I had solely heard his words, absolutely. And I'm far from the only one seeing this, as the media right now are all jumping on this, including mainstream.

:)

[Jeff]

(Jim didn't like my jokes, and using fake quotes, --as other have done here since and he's had no objection to becaaaause ???---. But he asked me --as a fellow member- to change the way i do things. I suggested he put me on ignore if my jokes seemed offensive to him.
So he did. )
............


But i'll make the issue of this thread clearer with quotes



But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying.


"true nature peeks through"?
"But only the naive and the dishonest would claim they don't know what he's saying."

How is that we can see Paul's TRUE Racist NATURE from a "food stamp" quote but have a hard time seeing "subhuman mongel" quotes as racist?
and spend pages defending those words and the Man.

it's not a deflection it's a clarification. Both statements are in fact racist. But one is far worse than the other. But one's comments are defended/justified/rationalized/ but the other person is condemned and scorned his words putting him outside of the pale of civil and sane discourse. Even when he's not running for office anymore and is just a private citizen. The SAME as Neugent.

so yep is hypocritical BS to bring up Ron Paul the private citizens and claim some moral OUTRAGE over his statements which only the "dishonest" and "naive" would not understand as racist.


But Jim does go on and say this... and Jeff this answers your question




but I still have yet to read anyone here say that "Neugent is a Racist" Jeff you told me He is NOT.
but Jim says quote "...Ron Paul is a Racist and a Liar...". and Jeff you agreed with that it looks like.


If we are going to condemn racist private citizens lets be honest and do it across the board.
Any threads titled "More from the racist Ted Nuegent" coming up from anyone?


Jeff I answered your question in this post, you must have missed it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48772-More-from-the-racist-Ron-Paul&p=725287#post725287

My apologies Rev, yes I missed it, but honestly no I don't agree with ya on this one, Ted said the word Mongral and yes Obama is from a mixed marriage and maybe he did say that for that reason but Obama has made racism the thing to be , hell if it isn't GW's fault then ya have to be a racist, but honestly having listened to Ted speak before I truly feel that is something he would call anyone ( no matter their color ) that he doesn't like. You have to remember Rev Ted does help feel folks of all color, he donates a lot of that food he hunts so people that wouldn't have food do, I just don't buy into the whole racist thing, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, I just don't think I am here.

[Jeff]

My apologies Rev, yes I missed it, but honestly no I don't agree with ya on this one, Ted said the word Mongral and yes Obama is from a mixed marriage and maybe he did say that for that reason but Obama has made racism the thing to be , hell if it isn't GW's fault then ya have to be a racist, but honestly having listened to Ted speak before I truly feel that is something he would call anyone ( no matter their color ) that he doesn't like. You have to remember Rev Ted does help feel folks of all color, he donates a lot of that food he hunts so people that wouldn't have food do, I just don't buy into the whole racist thing, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, I just don't think I am here.

Feed folks of all colors


Yes a major typo, I know the one that I did catch :laugh:

[Kathianne]

As I posted before, I have problems with folks that 'condemn a group of persons with their broad brush,' whether on race, religion, politics, etc.

However, many have tried to have discussions on problems based on some generalities of certain groups. They often are doing so in order to actually address the causes of problems or maybe only to at least acknowledge that problems exist. Examples would be discussions of whether or not 'profiling' should be used by police. Related would be crime stats on which groups commit the most crimes or which groups commit the most violent crimes or which groups commit the most crimes against another group.

(The general answer in all of the above is young-17-30, unemployed, males-most often from single parent homes and poor. More specifically are young, black, unemployed, males...)

Racists will then say 'black males' are the problem, it's 'race-based.' Addressing the causes, thus making possible to actually attempt to fix the problem, is not coming from racism.

Another prejudice would be that 'single parent homes or poverty' are the causes. These would seem to be a bit more causative, since both factors are overwhelming found across the spectrum of most perpetrators.

As with most complex problems, there are those that skew the factors that can be identified. There are females that commit a small but significant number of crimes including violent ones. There are young people from intact, wealthy families that do too.

Now back to the real issue of this thread as I see it, before I make judgement of whether or not of someone's being prejudiced, I look to what they do as opposed to just what they say.

Jeff brought up Nugent's giving food to the needy, regardless of race. That's a point I certainly would take into account. Same with anyone that advocates for young people, especially those that fall into lower-economic strata, due to circumstances beyond their control. Programs that offer or those that volunteer to help young people improve school performance, apply for jobs or applications for better schools, how to handle money, etc.
In other words, look at actions/values, not just their words.

It's actions of the president and his administration that have led to my conclusion that it's a divisive and racist entity. When the executive and his minions fly to the microphone to condemn incidents against blacks, Muslims before actually investigated; remain silent when facts don't match their original condemnations of police or individuals; when they repeatedly call for changes/improvements/laws to address issues that haven't been in fact to be shown to be what portrayed to be, it's obvious to me, that there is another agenda going on.

I think it behooves all of us, including political leaders, to refrain from rushing to judgement, especially on the issues that creates schisms between us. This includes whether someone is motivated by racism.

"It's by their actions," not just by their words.

[Kathianne]

and sometimes it's words and actions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/eric-holder-civil-rights-interview-mike-allen-115575.html


<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Eric Holder's parting shot: It's too hard to bring civil rights casesIn an exit interview, the attorney general says his critics may be partly driven by race.
</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Mike Allen (http://www.politico.com/reporters/MikeAllen.html)
<time datetime="2015-02-27T07:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;">2/27/15 7:00 AM EST</time>
</footer>

Attorney General Eric Holder plans to push, during his final weeks in office, a new standard of proof for civil-rights offenses, saying in an exit interview (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/mike-allen-interviews-attorney-general-eric-holder-115576.html?ml=tl_1) with POLITICO that such a change would make the federal government “a better backstop” against discrimination in cases like Ferguson and Trayvon Martin.

In a lengthy discussion ranging from his own exposure to the civil rights movement of the ’60s to today’s controversies surrounding the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Holder also acknowledged that he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race...


Throughout much his tenure, Holder has been a frequent target of criticism by Republicans in Congress, leading to some pointed confrontations. He was voted in contempt of Congress by House Republicans in 2012, and has sometimes felt disrespected during Capitol Hill appearances. He refused to dismiss the notion that some of the hostility was related to his race, but acknowledged that “it’s hard to say — you know, hard to look into people’s minds, you know, their hearts.”


But when he was asked what book he would recommend to a young person coming to Washington, like his 32-year-old aide Kevin Lewis, who started at the White House at age 26, Holder made a revealing choice: “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.”






...

[jimnyc]

Holder is another piece of shit that appears to be someone only really interested in the black race. Good riddance to him.

[revelarts]

As I posted before, I have problems with folks that 'condemn a group of persons with their broad brush,' whether on race, religion, politics, etc.

However, many have tried to have discussions on problems based on some generalities of certain groups. They often are doing so in order to actually address the causes of problems or maybe only to at least acknowledge that problems exist. Examples would be discussions of whether or not 'profiling' should be used by police. Related would be crime stats on which groups commit the most crimes or which groups commit the most violent crimes or which groups commit the most crimes against another group.

(The general answer in all of the above is young-17-30, unemployed, males-most often from single parent homes and poor. More specifically are young, black, unemployed, males...)

Racists will then say 'black males' are the problem, it's 'race-based.' Addressing the causes, thus making possible to actually attempt to fix the problem, is not coming from racism.

Another prejudice would be that 'single parent homes or poverty' are the causes. These would seem to be a bit more causative, since both factors are overwhelming found across the spectrum of most perpetrators.

As with most complex problems, there are those that skew the factors that can be identified. There are females that commit a small but significant number of crimes including violent ones. There are young people from intact, wealthy families that do too.

we're on the same page here.
.
.


Now back to the real issue of this thread as I see it, before I make judgement of whether or not of someone's being prejudiced, I look to what they do as opposed to just what they say.

Jeff brought up Nugent's giving food to the needy, regardless of race. That's a point I certainly would take into account. Same with anyone that advocates for young people, especially those that fall into lower-economic strata, due to circumstances beyond their control. Programs that offer or those that volunteer to help young people improve school performance, apply for jobs or applications for better schools, how to handle money, etc.
In other words, look at actions/values, not just their words.
....
.....
I think it behooves all of us, including political leaders, to refrain from rushing to judgement, especially on the issues that creates schisms between us. This includes whether someone is motivated by racism.

"It's by their actions," not just by their words.

And it's Ron's Pauls words that are at issue in this thread. "food stamps"...
"food stamps" which as i pointed out earlier Newt Ginrigh used SEVERAL times during his CAMPAIGN . but no one here was convinced beyond all doubt he was racist by those words and no one had to bring up is actions as opposed to his words. and Noone here YET has made a single comment about NEWT's "racist words

and Ted Nuegent's "sub-huaman mongrel" comments are obviously racist, as Jim said you'd have to "Naive" or "dishonest" not to see that. that's including self-deception there. giving those you like the FULL benny AND MORE of the doubt. Add to those words the use of "chimpanzee" and how clear can you get?!

but he gives food to the poor even poor blacks so makes it all go away?
Actions do In fact count, they count a lot. But they don't erases the meaning of certain words that come directly out of your mouth. And Neugents apologies, they are also taken by Jeff and others at FULL value concerning the content of his DIRECT words and his so-called intended meanings.

But Ron Paul says "FOOD STAMPS" and it's an automatic indication that he's a FULL on RACIST, --oh thank the goodness gracious he didn't become president he's sooo racist---. But here's an action i post when Paul was running and it did nothing to sway anyone's opinion or give them pause to take in consideration that he might not be the racist suggested. If i remember correctly the accusers on this board just piled on more abuse of Ron Paul and dismissed this. I post it again and see if it does the same.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFOZC8ock4

[Kathianne]

we're on the same page here.
.
.


And it's Ron's Pauls words that are at issue in this thread. "food stamps"...
"food stamps" which as i pointed out earlier Newt Ginrigh used SEVERAL times during his CAMPAIGN . but no one here was convinced beyond all doubt he was racist by those words and no one had to bring up is actions as opposed to his words. and Noone here YET has made a single comment about NEWT's "racist words

and Ted Nuegent's "sub-huaman mongrel" comments are obviously racist, as Jim said you'd have to "Naive" or "dishonest" not to see that. that's including self-deception there. giving those you like the FULL benny AND MORE of the doubt. Add to those words the use of "chimpanzee" and how clear can you get?!

but he gives food to the poor even poor blacks so makes it all go away?
Actions do In fact count, they count a lot. But they don't erases the meaning of certain words that come directly out of your mouth. And Neugents apologies, they are also taken by Jeff and others at FULL value concerning the content of his DIRECT words and his so-called intended meanings.

But Ron Paul says "FOOD STAMPS" and it's an automatic indication that he's a FULL on RACIST, --oh thank the goodness gracious he didn't become president he's sooo racist---. But here's an action i post when Paul was running and it did nothing to sway anyone's opinion or give them pause to take in consideration that he might not be the racist suggested. If i remember correctly the accusers on this board just piled on more abuse of Ron Paul and dismissed this. I post it again and see if it does the same.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFOZC8ock4

As I said, it's based on actions AND words, not words alone. In Paul's case, the words and actions span decades, not weeks or one topic.

[jimnyc]

I wonder if Ron Paul's blatant and proven racism, in his own words, printed on his own letterhead, spoken in first person, using anecdotes of his own past... I wonder if that should be forgotten. Hell, he even stated "his words were taken out of context". Weird that he would make such statements if he didn't write the letters. He IS a proven racist.

But if he's not, I think we should change the name of Ferguson, MO to "Zooville". Should be fine, right? And definitely change NYC to "Welfaria", but only in the black sections, since it's not racist. And LA should definitely be "rapeville" in the black areas.

I can EASILY see how that could have been taken out of context. LOL

---

And the apple sits close to the tree...

Rand Paul Has 3 Racist Strikes Now

Chris Hayes is done with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky).

Though Paul has drawn favor from liberals for his defense of civil liberties and opposition to America's wars, the MSNBC host argued on Tuesday night's installment of "All In With Chris Hayes" that it's impossible to take him seriously after the revelation that one of his aides used to be a neo-Confederate activist.

Earlier on Tuesday, The Washington Free Beacon published some surprising details about what Paul's social media director, Jack Hunter -- who also co-wrote a book with Paul in 2011 -- used to do in his spare time:

From 1999 to 2012, Hunter was a South Carolina radio shock jock known as the “Southern Avenger.” He has weighed in on issues such as racial pride and Hispanic immigration, and stated his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

During public appearances, Hunter often wore a mask on which was printed a Confederate flag.

Prior to his radio career, while in his 20s, Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which “advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.”

This isn't an isolated incident, Hayes argued, listing the three "white supremacist strikes" Paul has racked up so far.

"Strike one was in 2009 when Rand Paul's Senate campaign spokesperson was forced to resign over a horribly racist comment and historical image of a lynching -- I'm not making that up -- posted by a friend of his on his MySpace wall on Martin Luther King weekend, then allowed to remain for almost two years," Hayes said.

Strike two, Hayes added, was when Paul expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act in an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show. (Paul later said in a statement that he supports the Civil Rights Act "because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.")

"And now this. Southern Avenger on the Senator's staff," Hayes said. "Well, I'm sorry, Rand Paul. That's three racist strikes. You're out."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/chris-hayes-rand-paul-racist_n_3570440.html

Of course it's not just huffington, his racist ties and such have been well documented.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Getting your facts straight would make you look less foolish. I wasn't replying to you, I was making a commentary on your disgusting words.





:laugh: Way to double down on stupid.

Way to crawl back dude. Sure, you quoted me but was not replying to me and you did so in a way as to leave this obvious by way of your reply which was an insult. So you did in fact reply to me but used that method. Quit being such a ffing weasel about it .

You do know that others can read your posts here don't ya? :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[revelarts]

As I said, it's based on actions AND words, not words alone. In Paul's case, the words and actions span decades, not weeks or one topic.
i see.
so actions don't mater for some people.
The fact that acts of kindness and money out of his pocket like the one above happened years and deacdes ago doesn't budge you a bit. Others who've worked with him have said the incident above was not a single event but part of what Ron Paul did often... over the decades.

and Ron Paul apologized and explained the decades old newsletters, decades ago and again and again.
But UNLIKE Ted Neugents explanations he's NOT believed at all. And NOTHING is to be taken into consideration as giving a new perspective?

I just have to wonder if it's because of his other positions. your tone sounds so VERY open in the case of Neugent who called the president a "chimpanzee" in 2014, but you have no similar openness to Paul who made apologies and explanations and decent acts for decades.
and feel compelled to pile accusation of full on racism on when he "caught" saying "food stands".

[fj1200]

Way to crawl back dude. Sure, you quoted me but was not replying to me and you did so in a way as to leave this obvious by way of your reply which was an insult. So you did in fact reply to me but used that method. Quit being such a ffing weasel about it .

You do know that others can read your posts here don't ya? :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

Still whining? Yes, I know that others can read my posts, they also understand. You just see words and then let your imagination take over. - FACT

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Special post here just for those dimwits that have and will argue that TRUTH is racist...


TRUTH IS NOT RACIST!! TRUTH is recognized fact.
If a negative fact pertains to only one race or hurt the feelings of any one group they should change their evil or corruptive ways not cry racist , accusing the member posting such truth.
Both myself and Jim have stated in the past certain truths backed by published FBI crime data, yet each time I repeat that verified TRUTH both fj and Rev cry out Racist.

I repeat again for such slow witted members-- TRUTH IS NOT RACIST!

You guys can deny, cry, scream , crap in your cereal and call that reality , that TRUTH racist but its just ignorant and delusional bullshit on your part! --TYR

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul taking responsibility and explaining the racist newsletters. Funny stuff!!

During the 1996 reelection campaign Paul did not deny writing the newsletters,[22] and defended their content, saying that he opposed racism and his remarks about blacks had been taken out of context

In March 2001, Paul said he did not write the commentaries, but stopped short of denying authorship in 1996 because his campaign advisers had thought it would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[24][25] In 2011 Paul's spokesperson Jesse Benton said Paul had "taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch"

Numerous sources said Lew Rockwell, who co-founded the firm that published the newsletters and remained an officer throughout its existence,[5] had written the racially charged content. In 2008, the libertarian news magazine Reason reported that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists" said that Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.[5] Former Ron Paul Chief of Staff John W. Robbins (1981–1985) publicly called on Rockwell to say he wrote the "puerile, racist" newsletters, and stated that "all informed people" believe that Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters.[26] A New Republic listing of newsletters[21] showed that Rockwell's name appears on newsletters as a contributing editor[27] or editor.[28]

Rockwell said that he was involved in the operations of the newsletters, but denied writing them, saying his role was confined to writing subscription letters.[29] He also said the person who ghost wrote the racially charged pieces "is now long gone" and that he "left in unfortunate circumstances."[29] He has described discussion of the newsletters scandal as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."[30]

In January 2012, The Washington Post reported that several of Paul's former associates said that there was no indication that he had written the controversial passages himself, but three people said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits.[31] According to one of the associates, Paul's former secretary (and a self-described supporter of his 2012 Presidential campaign) Renae Hathway, Paul was a "hands-on boss" who would come into the Houston office, about 50 miles (80 km) from home, about once a week. She said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it." She also said, "We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world... I never had one complaint about the content."[31]

Ed Crane, founder and president of the Cato Institute, told Reason that in a discussion of with Ron Paul during the period in which the newsletters were published, Paul said his chief source of campaign contributions was the mailing address for the controversial Spotlight magazine. Reason reports that the now defunct magazine, run by Holocaust Denier Willis Carto, promoted anti-Semitism.[5] Paul denied the accusations, telling CNN that Hathway had made up what she had said, and that he had no recollection of the alleged conversation with Crane and did not know what Crane was talking about.[32]

During Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, journalist Ben Swann revisited the newsletters story and reported the name of another author, James B. Powell, found in the byline in a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide – an article titled "How to Protect Against Urban Violence", with purported racist content.[33] In his report Swann said the 2008 coverage by The New Republic had reported that only one of the controversial articles had a byline, but had not identified either the specific issue or the name of the author. However, in a Washington Post piece that argued that, "[on] the topic of Ron Paul’s racist, homophobic and creepy-cum-conspiratorial newsletters, Swann allows his affection for constitutionalist politics to corrupt his judgment," Kirchick said that Swann's story on Powell consisted of no original reporting and had been previously documented in Kirchick's earlier pieces on the scandal.[34] Kirchick wrote in 2012 that he was disappointed that the media revelations of Paul's newsletters had not curtailed Paul's political career to the degree that seemed possible in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters

[fj1200]

Special post here just for those dimwits that have and will argue that TRUTH is racist...


TRUTH IS NOT RACIST!! TRUTH is recognized fact.
If a negative fact pertains to only one race or hurt the feelings of any one group they should change their evil or corruptive ways not cry racist , accusing the member posting such truth.
Both myself and Jim have stated in the past certain truths backed by published FBI crime data, yet each time I repeat that verified TRUTH both fj and Rev cry out Racist.

I repeat again for such slow witted members-- TRUTH IS NOT RACIST!

You guys can deny, cry, scream , crap in your cereal and call that reality , that TRUTH racist but its just ignorant and delusional bullshit on your part! --TYR

Truth isn't racist. You appear to be though. I have posted repeatedly on the actual truth whereas you stick your head in the sand. Do you or do you not believe blacks to be below other races?

[Kathianne]

i see.
so actions don't mater for some people.
The fact that acts of kindness and money out of his pocket like the one above happened years and deacdes ago doesn't budge you a bit. Others who've worked with him have said the incident above was not a single event but part of what Ron Paul did often... over the decades.

and Ron Paul apologized and explained the decades old newsletters, decades ago and again and again.
But UNLIKE Ted Neugents explanations he's NOT believed at all. And NOTHING is to be taken into consideration as giving a new perspective?

I just have to wonder if it's because of his other positions. your tone sounds so VERY open in the case of Neugent who called the president a "chimpanzee" in 2014, but you have no similar openness to Paul who made apologies and explanations and decent acts for decades.
and feel compelled to pile accusation of full on racism on when he "caught" saying "food stands".

Both of us try to stay out of the mud, I see this thread going there now. So, this is likely my last post on this thread and I do want to answer you.

I really know little about Nugent and I'm sure not going to 'research him.' My one response regarding him was as an example, based on something Jeff had written. Now that may or may not satisfy you with my example, but I'm getting ready for work and as I said, by the time I get back it looks like this thread isn't going to get better.

Earlier I wrote that YES I do exercise more gathering of information on those running for office than on 'celebrities,' or those posting here. I know you remember the original discussions on Ron Paul, the reason being that I seeked out more info is that what I'd originally heard made sense to me. I was bitterly disappointed in what I'd found.

Apologies for what he'd done, only after the internet lit up with the newsletters, which him or Rockwell did there best to 'disappear,' spoke of actions, not words.

You certainly don't have to agree with me, neither of us are likely to change our positions after all these years, but that is where I was and am coming from.

[revelarts]

Both of us try to stay out of the mud, I see this thread going there now. So, this is likely my last post on this thread and I do want to answer you.

I really know little about Nugent and I'm sure not going to 'research him.' My one response regarding him was as an example, based on something Jeff had written. Now that may or may not satisfy you with my example, but I'm getting ready for work and as I said, by the time I get back it looks like this thread isn't going to get better.

Earlier I wrote that YES I do exercise more gathering of information on those running for office than on 'celebrities,' or those posting here. I know you remember the original discussions on Ron Paul, the reason being that I seeked out more info is that what I'd originally heard made sense to me. I was bitterly disappointed in what I'd found.

Apologies for what he'd done, only after the internet lit up with the newsletters, which him or Rockwell did there best to 'disappear,' spoke of actions, not words.

You certainly don't have to agree with me, neither of us are likely to change our positions after all these years, but that is where I was and am coming from.
I guess my main point is this thread is about a "food stamp" line that of itself has been blow in a KKK phrase worthy of the worse condemnation. While others are given a FULL pass.
and then PAUL is not even in office or running ever again so.
But yeah, I'm done here as well.


Have great day at work Kath.
peace and blessings

[jimnyc]

Both of us try to stay out of the mud, I see this thread going there now. So, this is likely my last post on this thread and I do want to answer you.

What part? Others fighting? My posts? I can split posts away if necessary.

[jimnyc]

Apologies for what he'd done, only after the internet lit up with the newsletters, which him or Rockwell did there best to 'disappear,' spoke of actions, not words.

He originally didn't even deny the words, just claimed they were somehow taken out of context. It wasn't until it was potentially harming his political races that he started furthering his excuses and the blame shifted.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Truth isn't racist. You appear to be though. I have posted repeatedly on the actual truth whereas you stick your head in the sand. Do you or do you not believe blacks to be below other races?
You personal opinion of what I appear to be to you concerns me less than zero Hoss.
I STAND THAT TRUTH SHOULD BE EXPANDED ON AND OPENLY SPOKEN WITH NO CRITICISM OF WHO, WHAT OR HOW IT MAY HURT OR UPSET OTHERS.

As to your question, I have no need or reason to answer you but I will do so.

No one race is superior to another, God made us ALL HUMAN!
however, THE BLACK CULTURE IN THIS NATION, exhibits and promotes certain bad traits and one of those is contempt for the Rule of Law. Thus they engage in a higher volume of criminal activity not due to skin color but due to cultural and family norms.
That is the truth , if you think it is racist--tough shit, that's your ffing problem not mine!
If truth hurts-- then change your evil ways says I.. --Tyr

[fj1200]

You personal opinion of what I appear to be to you concerns me less than zero Hoss.
I STAND THAT TRUTH SHOULD BE EXPANDED ON AND OPENLY SPOKEN WITH NO CRITICISM OF WHO, WHAT OR HOW IT MAY HURT OR UPSET OTHERS.

As to your question, I have no need or reason to answer you but I will do so.

No one race is superior to another, God made us ALL HUMAN!
however, THE BLACK CULTURE IN THIS NATION, exhibits and promotes certain bad traits and one of those is contempt for the Rule of Law. Thus they engage in a higher volume of criminal activity not due to skin color but due to cultural and family norms.
That is the truth , if you think it is racist--tough shit, that's your ffing problem not mine!
If truth hurts-- then change your evil ways says I.. --Tyr

That you sound like a racist when you go on your blathering rants is the problem for any conservative if you count yourself among our ranks. That trash isn't conservative, it's bigoted and ignorant. If you want to be a thinking conservative you should at least investigate what leads to those "cultural and family norms" instead of ranting away with what you want to call truth. If you cared about truth you'd call out government programs and the like rather than the constant blaming of blacks. Your version of "truth" stops where you want it and is nothing more than propagandist rantings. Do you need me to post links to Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, the Heritage Foundation, etc. again? I'd be happy to do so because that's where the truth lies.

[tailfins]

That you sound like a racist when you go on your blathering rants is the problem for any conservative if you count yourself among our ranks. That trash isn't conservative, it's bigoted and ignorant. If you want to be a thinking conservative you should at least investigate what leads to those "cultural and family norms" instead of ranting away with what you want to call truth. If you cared about truth you'd call out government programs and the like rather than the constant blaming of blacks. Your version of "truth" stops where you want it and is nothing more than propagandist rantings. Do you need me to post links to Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, the Heritage Foundation, etc. again? I'd be happy to do so because that's where the truth lies.

He isn't running for office nor is he in a position to expose a company to legal liability; so who cares?

[fj1200]

He isn't running for office nor is he in a position to expose a company to legal liability; so who cares?

The lefties care so they can smear anyone with the Paul last name and Republicans in general.

[tailfins]

The lefties care so they can smear anyone with the Paul last name and Republicans in general.

They can sign up sock puppets online and accomplish that.

[fj1200]

They can sign up sock puppets online and accomplish that.

That doesn't get them in the media.

[Elessar]

The lefties care so they can smear anyone with the Paul last name and Republicans in general.

I don 't care about either Paul, but your reply is BINGO!

[jimnyc]

The lefties care so they can smear anyone with the Paul last name and Republicans in general.

Perhaps republicans - but the Paul family have given reason for people to come after them. Many are starting to see them as 2 from the same mold - a little too far out there from mainstream for many - weird connections - weird stances... They have smeared themselves with racism, racist connections, racist statements and other sheer foolishness.