Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Kreton · Feb 1, 2012

It's funny how vehemently people claim RP is a racist based on the newsletters without any real proof that he had involvement in the writing/editing of them, yet say that those of us who give him the benefit of the doubt must be doing some mental gymnastics to get there. I don't hear anybody saying that he isn't responsible for the newsletters (even the man himself) because they bear his name and ultimately it is his responsibility. Then to go on and say that his lack of oversight makes him a terrible choice for President because what if he does it to an important bill etc. Yet, it is common knowledge that RP is probably one of the most fastidious members of congress when it comes to reading what he signs. Let's go ahead and ignore that fact because that would have no bearing on him as President. To label the man a racist is merely just slander (I would like some more instances of racism other than these newsletter please, maybe something tangible) and just shows your bias against him and to try and claim he wasn't responsible for the newsletters (which I haven't really heard anybody say) is just ignorant.

My biggest problem is he doesn't own up the the situation. Far too many politicians do this. Deny, reflect blame, anything other than own up to it. Unless their backs are against the wall and they cant blame someone else, or deny it. Then they come out and want to accept responsibility.

radcen · Feb 1, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
It's funny how vehemently people claim RP is a racist based on the newsletters without any real proof that he had involvement in the writing/editing of them, yet say that those of us who give him the benefit of the doubt must be doing some mental gymnastics to get there.

As you are here. You're choice of the word "proof" over "evidence" is telling. You're purposely setting the bar higher than can be achieved in an effort to bolster your own bias.

Chaddelamancha said:
I don't hear anybody saying that he isn't responsible for the newsletters (even the man himself) because they bear his name and ultimately it is his responsibility. Then to go on and say that his lack of oversight makes him a terrible choice for President because what if he does it to an important bill etc. Yet, it is common knowledge that RP is probably one of the most fastidious members of congress when it comes to reading what he signs. Let's go ahead and ignore that fact because that would have no bearing on him as President. To label the man a racist is merely just slander (I would like some more instances of racism other than these newsletter please, maybe something tangible) and just shows your bias against him and to try and claim he wasn't responsible for the newsletters (which I haven't really heard anybody say) is just ignorant.

Is he, really? His stances are consistent, for the most part, I'll give him that, but at the same time he would also know that he would oppose pretty much anything that comes down the line just based on surface beliefs, so in-depth reading isn't really necessary. It's not like he had to read every word and pick out some little vague nuance. Things like "No taxes" or "the budget isn't balanced" are easy and good enough. What's ignorant... willfully ignorant... is choosing to fail to see evidence for what it is.

Chaddelamancha · Feb 1, 2012

radcen said:
As you are here. You're choice of the word "proof" over "evidence" is telling. You're purposely setting the bar higher than can be achieved in an effort to bolster your own bias.

Is he, really? His stances are consistent, for the most part, I'll give him that, but at the same time he would also know that he would oppose pretty much anything that comes down the line just based on surface beliefs, so in-depth reading isn't really necessary. It's not like he had to read every word and pick out some little vague nuance. Things like "No taxes" or "the budget isn't balanced" are easy and good enough. What's ignorant... willfully ignorant... is choosing to fail to see evidence for what it is.

You must have missed the part where I said he was responsible for the newsletter, I just don't think he is a racist. I need more evidence than a few newsletters to be convinced otherwise. That is called being informed, not ignorant. Clearly you have the man pegged as a racist and that's your prerogative.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

ric27 · Feb 1, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
You must have missed the part where I said he was responsible for the newsletter, I just don't think he is a racist. I need more evidence than a few newsletters to be convinced otherwise. That is called being informed, not ignorant. Clearly you have the man pegged as a racist and that's your prerogative.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

Damage is already done. Many see Paul as a racist (true or false is not the issue)

radcen · Feb 1, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
You must have missed the part where I said he was responsible for the newsletter, I just don't think he is a racist. I need more evidence than a few newsletters to be convinced otherwise. That is called being informed, not ignorant. Clearly you have the man pegged as a racist and that's your prerogative.

You rationalized the level of his responsibility. As far as your conclusion regarding my opinion, start at Post #1 in this thread and read all my posts. If you're even partially intellectually honest, you will realize that your conclusion is incorrect.

Chaddelamancha · Feb 1, 2012

radcen said:
You rationalized the level of his responsibility. As far as your conclusion regarding my opinion, start at Post #1 in this thread and read all my posts. If you're even partially intellectually honest, you will realize that your conclusion is incorrect.

radcen said:
I'm open to the idea that he's not actually a racist... though I do think it is possible... but the other factors tell me a lot more about how he would govern than he would like us to know, and I believe that would not serve anybody well.

So he might not be a racist, but then again he might be? Did I get it this time?

Rationalizing his responsibility? Where did I do that? Why not read all my posts and tell me where I did any rationalizing. Again, what I said was he was responsible for the newsletters, I just don't believe he is a racist.

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Kreton

Doesn't know

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Chaddelamancha

ric27

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Chaddelamancha

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Kreton

Doesn't know

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Chaddelamancha

ric27

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Chaddelamancha

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency