19
Oct
07

Ron Paul Follow Up

So I guess I pissed off the Ron Paul cult with my last post, given the fact that my blog traffic has skyrocketed and I’m now receiving angry comments (some of which I have not posted because they are inflammatory and offensive).

However, I feel that should respond to one good argument the Paulites have made.  That argument is that there should not be guilt by association. In other words, just because Dr. Paul meets with 9/11 conspiracy groups or because he is endorsed by white supremacist groups, that doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy. Consider this comment I received, for example:

“You’re ignorance astounds me. Guilt by association, ay? Apparently if you want a protected border, you’re a racist. If you work with Pat Buchanan, you’re an anti-Semite. If you’re Ron Paul and you speak to a group of Robert Taft supporters, you’re a racist again.”

Fair enough. So let’s forget for a moment which extremist groups Ron Paul meets with or what kind of shady people he surrounds himself with. Just consider what Ron Paul said, as covered by the Houston Chronicle in 1992:

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

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

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. 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,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Now make up your own mind.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Ron Paul Follow Up”


  1. 1 L. Step
    October 19, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    I think Bill Cosby makes more or less the same point as Ron Paul.

  2. 2 Jeff
    October 19, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    He didn’t write those comments. He even said that it was ghost written by an angry person that left his camp. Please inform yourself before you go posting on the internet.

  3. 3 Hah
    October 19, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    If I remember correct this has been answered and explained by the Ron Paul campaign, I really hope you have more than this, to pin your hopes upon.

  4. 4 smtwngrl
    October 20, 2007 at 1:45 am

    Wow, that has been circulating for about 5-6 months now and has been addressed numerous times. I wonder if it’s even worth addressing again.

  5. October 20, 2007 at 2:15 am

    The magazine Commentary is published by Norman Podhoretz, who is regarded as the intellectual godfather of the neoconservative movement. In a recent issue, he published an article which asserts that black people are less intelligent than white people.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm?article=com.commentarymagazine.content.Article::10855

    Podhoretz is now an advisor to the campaign of Rudy Giuliani. Since Giuliani is far more likely to win the Republican presidential nomination than is Paul, I expect that you’ll devote a lot of posts demanding that Giuliani distance himself from Podhoretz’s racial doctrines.

  6. 6 eekman
    October 20, 2007 at 4:02 am

    Dude that newsletter was discredited months ago. Ghostwriter who was fired, members of congress defended him, he hasnt said anything remotely racist since. Ancient history. Try again. That and the earmark thing are the only things people can find on paul, and they are easily explained away.

  7. 7 Justin Offermann
    October 20, 2007 at 6:05 am

    Ron Paul did not write those things. They did appear in a newsletter put out by the Paul campaign, but they were written by an aide who was subsequently fired. Paul has apologized numerous times for those statements.

  8. 8 corbusier
    October 20, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Does this mean that in a Ron Paul Presidential Administration he would not be accountable for what his staff does? Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine if the President Bush had the luxury of being able able to say, “It’s not my fault that there was a “mission accomplished” banner set up behind me during a photo op, it was a member of my staff that put that up there and that person has since been fired….Also, the Axis of Evil thing? I know that hasn’t been recieved very well by the international community but I should not be held accountable for saying that because my speechwriter wrote that into my speech and he has since been fired.”

  9. 9 rhys
    October 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    I don’t care if the President is a racist or not. All I care about is whether the Pesident will do the job he is hired to do. The job of the President is actually very simpe, though not easy. The President’s job is to uphold the oath of office: to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. There are no other candidates who have proven that they will uphold the Pesidential oath of office with the zeal of Paul, so there are no other candidates worth considering.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: