Why would you doubt Ron Paul is a racist? Because he hides it well these days?
I'm sick and tired of people like Ron Paul bitching about how we need more personal responsibility, but as soon as he makes a glaring error... it isn't his fault and he shouldn't be blamed. You know, it's only his newsletter... he can't be bothered to control every little thing...
Let's suppose he didn't write any of the atrocious things in those newsletters (though I don't believe that for a second). I'm supposed to think he's a good guy and electable when he employs people to represent him that think that way? Great, so Ron Paul MIGHT not be a racist, but his cabinet and advisers are? Well, that is a load off my mind...
Fuck Ron Paul and fuck the little fan boys who have such a crush on him.
Let's examine this disturbed little clover's comment turd in more detail.
Why would you doubt Ron Paul is a racist?
Why would anyone doubt anything? We speak often of giving someone the "benefit of the doubt", and with good reason. We can't know with certainty what someone is by entering their mind, so we go on other things, including their statements and actions. If there was something in their past that indicates one view, we have to (to be honest, and not merely a lying hater spewing venom because you are more offended by libertarianism than you are by the encroaching police state supported by Barack Obama and every other "non-racist" candidate) examine it in light of a person's current views and actions. Not only do I doubt Ron Paul is a racist (whatever that currently means in phony "leftist" parlance, like, you know, all whites are racist by definition or some bullshit) in reality, but I don't for a minute believe he is racist at all now, if he ever was (certainly a possibility). But people can and do change (well, except for lying little hate-filled clovers who leave inane, intellectually dishonest, freedom-hating comments full of logical fallacies).
Because he hides it well these days?
So, Ron Paul is a racist now and deserves no doubt from the lying know-it-all. Let's see, from this same lying piece of shit, I myself have been called numerous names, including at one point, a "child molester" for simply expressing doubt (honest people doubt all the time; only ignorant fools refuse to question) about the use of certain "laws" when no actual crimes were committed (and in that instance I was merely restating the same view of former Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano), but let's stay on Paul, shall we, and focus our attention on the fool's lies regarding the good doctor.
"Hides it well". Yes, because when current facts and reality don't support your wild, lying assertions, the focus of your hate must be hiding their real self. Like some insane biblical creationist who thinks God created the universe with only the appearance of age, hiding the truth behind a facade of ancientness, lying little clovers invent their own reality whenever confronted with facts not to their liking. Hides it well, translation: there is no actual reason or any fact to support the accusation that Ron Paul is currently a racist, so, he must be a hidden racist (because I, the lying statist fool, have no evidence -I almost never do - to back up my claim).
The reality is, Ron Paul is the least racist of any of the major candidates for president. Let's start with the fact that real racists have defined racism as possible only when you have power in society.
Prejudice by itself does not constitute racism, however. Neither does power by itself. But when people use their position of power, be it political or institutional, to reinforce their prejudices and to enforce them so that as a result of their racial prejudices the life chances, rights and opportunities of others are limited, the result is racism. Thus, the simplest definition of racism then is: Racism is prejudice plus power. On the basis of this definition, while all people can be prejudiced, only those who have power are really racist. African Americans, Latinos, Asians and American Indians‹the powerless in American society‹can be and often are most prejudiced toward Whites on an individual basis, but they are not racists at the structural, institutional level. Within this understanding of racism, to be a racist you have to possess two things: 1) socioeconomic power to force others to do what you desire even if they don't want to, and 2), the justification of this power abuse by an ideology of biological supremacy. Keep in mind that what often is described as racism in society today, is really nothing more than prejudice and discrimination. While a Black or Latino person, through the use of a gun and/or intimidation, can force a White person to do as he‹as an individual‹desires, this is an individual act of aggression, not a socially structured power arrangement. At present, however, only Whites have that kind of power...-The Undergirding Factor is POWER
Toward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism
Since Ron Paul is in the race for President of the United States not to attain power for himself (unlike all the other power-mad candidates) but to reduce the power of the Federal Government over all Americans lives and to reduce his own power as President as well (he opposes the abuse of Presidential Executive Orders and going to war without a declaration of war from Congress, as well as the imperial presidency in general), even if he had racial prejudices he wouldn't seek to enforce them. And, by giving all people more power over their own lives and reducing the state-sanctioned power of those institutions, both government and corporate, that enforce unfair economic advantage, he would actually be improving the socio-economic status of the least powerful in the current crony-capitalist economic system.
But on a more immediately visible issue, the insane power grab called the War on Drugs, Ron Paul is also the only candidate to not only oppose the drug war, but in that opposition, contrasts himself with all of those (including Obama) who support the current racist drug laws. Consider some facts (instead of your bizarre fantasies):
While all the major candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed "war on drugs" -- a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.
Consider this: According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, African Americans make up an estimated 15% of drug users, but they account for 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: The U.S. has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70%) of them are black or Latino.-The War on Drugs Is Really a War on Minorities
If actions speak louder than words (and they do for honest people who want the truth and have ears to hear the sounds of reality over the din of the screaming voices of their made-up fantasy world) then Ron Paul, by seeking to END (not reform) the war on drugs, is in FACT the only non-racist running for president in 2012.
I'm sick and tired of people like Ron Paul bitching about how we need more personal responsibility, but as soon as he makes a glaring error... it isn't his fault and he shouldn't be blamed.
This is what we call straining at gnats while swallowing camels. You can also file it with equivocation and comparing apple and oranges.
You know, it's only his newsletter... he can't be bothered to control every little thing...
True, Ron Paul is NOT an obsessive-compulsive control freak, and that's one of the things I like about him. Should he have shown more interest in something going out with his name on it? Probably, and perhaps he put unwarranted trust in others at that point, but nearly 20 years on, it's not something I'm too troubled over. I do know that those who are troubled excessively need to reevaluated their priorities.
Let's suppose he didn't write any of the atrocious things in those newsletters (though I don't believe that for a second).
The lying fool naturally has no doubts when it comes to his obsessive hatred for good. To cover his own appalling nakedness, self-hatred (what his projection onto others really indicates) and deep-seated evil, he lashes out with certainty and won't consider for even a second that he could be wrong. Think about that, for not even one little second! And he's calling out someone else for an error of judgement? Incredible!
Like his mistake in stating that Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul, was named after Ayn Rand (not true, his full first name is Randal) he didn't even bother to look into the issue of who actually wrote those newsletters.
Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters...-Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?
It would seem the evidence strongly points to Rockwell. According to the reason article, Ron Paul now repudiates the views in those writings. Of course, NOW means nothing to intellectually dishonest fools, and according to the fool currently under our microscope (an exquisite specimen) Paul is currently just "hiding well" his racism. But it's also questionable just how much of it Rockwell himself believed. Shifting alliances from left to right and back again has been a certain strategy of segments of the libertarian and paleo movements, and this is natural, as common ground exists between true liberals and leftists and libertarians (civil liberties, anti-war, drug legalization) and with some on the far-right who have animosity to government in general and the Feds in particular.
Regardless, Lew Rockwell's own views have evolved over the years. 10 years ago you might have seen pro-police and anti-immigration pieces at his website, but no longer. Attacks on police brutality and cops in general and opposition to state
actions against freedom of movement, even across national borders, is more the order of the day now. But to those who are frozen in the certitude of their own delusions, no one and nothing ever changes, viewpoints don't grow and evolve over time, people are always who and what they were.
It's also very interesting how a supposed "skeptic" can have not the slightest skepticism over how race and "racism" are framed and discussed.
I'm supposed to think he's a good guy and electable when he employs people to represent him that think that way?
Who does Ron Paul currently employ who thinks that way? Can the little fool name someone? And, yes, you are supposed (if you're an honest person) to think he's a good guy, because he so obviously is.
Great, so Ron Paul MIGHT not be a racist, but his cabinet and advisers are? Well, that is a load off my mind...
What mind? Demonstrate that you have one first, and that you're not just a programed automaton of the ruling elite and their propaganda. His cabinet and advisers? That's quite a leap in logic from some anonymous author of 20 year old newsletters to unfounded assumptions as to the filling of cabinet positions in a Paul administration.
Fuck Ron Paul
Here we have on embarrassing display the liar's total condensation and contempt (and lack of writing skills, like the morons I have too often encountered who could only express themselves with variations on the use of the word fuck) for those he hates. Repeatedly we have seen the words "Fuck Ron Paul" erupt from his keyboard, but where is the same passionate loathing for the psychopaths now running our government? If you oppose war, the drug laws, support civil liberties, shouldn't the most continual statement out of your mouth be "Fuck Barack Obama"? But of course, it's not about any of that to little liars such as Bret Alan. It's all about striking out at an easy target, one already hated by the establishment of both corrupt political parties in charge of a political system that promises "change" every election cycle but never delivers. It is a system which is falsely called "democracy" but one which the delusional Bret believes we somehow can work within to create real change. But when someone comes along who will actually do something to change the way things operate in this country, he is the one who is dangerous and must be stopped. Telling. Very telling indeed.
and fuck the little fan boys who have such a crush on him.
This is the language of the retarded, juvenile mind that has yet to mature. People who care about liberty, the state's wars, and preserving the Bill of Rights, can be dismissed as "fan boys" who have a "crush" and are therefore not worthy of engaging in serious discussion. However, I will concede to being a "fan" of Ron Paul, if that is the only terminology that will make the point to the mentally challenged Bret. I'm a fan because every other candidate for president is a dangerous sociopath, while in contrast Dr. Paul remains a real, compassionate human being.