Conquer Club

Lootifer wrote:wut?

Yes, exactly.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

CreepersWiener wrote:

Lootifer wrote:wut?

Yes, exactly.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

Symmetry wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:

Lootifer wrote:wut?

Yes, exactly.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

Creepers was just attacking and smearing what he does not understand. It's a common trait with people who are hate filled, constantly judge everything by race/gender/class, and trapped in a victim mentality.

per your extremely inaccurate claims about Libertarians being radically right wing on any persons sanity scale, I'm not sure you are remotely qualified to make such a statement (as with everything you say in your obsession with America).

Examples: Does the Libertarian position on drugs fall in line with Republican policies? How about foreign policy? Military spending and immigration? Why do Republicans seem to hate Ron Paul as much if not more than Democrats????

If you would like to begin learning about Libertarians, it would be a good idea to start with understanding "Liberty" Let us know when you are done with chapter 1. But first you have to start using your mind, rather than letting your feelings do your thinking, and you need to do something about the hatred you carry because it doesn't let you think straight. If you were thinking straight, you would be able to make a point without resorting to name calling.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:

Lootifer wrote:wut?

Yes, exactly.

You may agree with fair-sided speeches coming from the lips of Libertarian whack jobs, but let's not be so incredulous as not to see the truth of what is evolving.

The Elite built this system...not the poor. No need to be fair here, this is simple Darwinian philosophy: survival.

Serve your overlords or perish. Quite simple really. They have all the cards stacked in their favor and they are busy allocating the nation's and world's resources as they deem necessary towards their survival. The poor do not fit into the equation...they just get in the way and are annoying.

Behold the end of civilization...thanks to Ron Paul and his libertarian-zombie cult!

You see, this is the kind of wing-nut criticism of libertarianism that does little good. Yeah, most libertarians in the US are essentially a political wing of the Republican party while they pretend to be non-partisan, and yes, they're pretty radically right wing on any sane person's scale, but hopefully post Kim-Rong Paul they'll shift back toward a reasoned critique of government, and away from Goldfinger-esque politics.

Creepers was just attacking and smearing what he does not understand. It's a common trait with people who are hate filled, constantly judge everything by race/gender/class, and trapped in a victim mentality.

per your extremely inaccurate claims about Libertarians being radically right wing on any persons sanity scale, I'm not sure you are remotely qualified to make such a statement (as with everything you say in your obsession with America).

Examples: Does the Libertarian position on drugs fall in line with Republican policies? How about foreign policy? Military spending and immigration? Why do Republicans seem to hate Ron Paul as much if not more than Democrats????

If you would like to begin learning about Libertarians, it would be a good idea to start with understanding "Liberty" Let us know when you are done with chapter 1. But first you have to start using your mind, rather than letting your feelings do your thinking, and you need to do something about the hatred you carry because it doesn't let you think straight. If you were thinking straight, you would be able to make a point without resorting to name calling.

I think much of your problem in relating to the perceived issues surrounding libertarianism are kind of tied to the old guard surrounding Ron Paul. The newlsletters are kind of a big issue whichever way you cut it- either it's not stuff Paul actually believed, but was designed to appeal to his base, or it's stuff that he believes still, but won't acknowledge now that it's uncomfortable.

The Libertarians face a similar problem to the Republican party. So long entwined with the politics of hate, how to get the economic message across? Don't forget, Scotty, that you've been the prophet of gaymagedon on same sex marriage while saying that it's all about the economy.

Ron Paul was right to step out.

ron paul was like 80 or something. give the guy a break. i'm sure he stepped out because he's ready to buy an rv and do some traveling. not because he believes that his message is wrong.

i think the guy meant well, no matter what the letters said. kkk is associated with republican, black panther democrat. every group has a base they associate with. as it is, there are only 2 sides to be on. so of course if it's not your side, then it's the wrong one. i think there's more to it than just these letters that's got you all mad and hating on the guy. barrack is also associated with racist groups like that church he was involved with. and heck mitt was republican, so we know he's racist right?

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:ron paul was like 80 or something. give the guy a break. i'm sure he stepped out because he's ready to buy an rv and do some traveling. not because he believes that his message is wrong.

i think the guy meant well, no matter what the letters said. kkk is associated with republican, black panther democrat. every group has a base they associate with. as it is, there are only 2 sides to be on. so of course if it's not your side, then it's the wrong one. i think there's more to it than just these letters that's got you all mad and hating on the guy. barrack is also associated with racist groups like that church he was involved with. and heck mitt was republican, so we know he's racist right?

this

Those guys are just trolling. They are attacking him and lying about him because they think it annoys me and they get off on trying to get a rise out of me (even though it has never worked and never will!) Ron Paul did not write anything in that letter, and their tactic is a true testament to perpetrating disgusting evil and exploiting the issue of racism against a man who was just trying to save them from the fiscal cliff and their children from debt slavery. So shame on them. The next generation will know who was right, and they will not forgive the Progressives (in BOTH parties) for knowingly and purposefully enslaving them to an inescapable debt before they were even born.

Btw, KKK was founded by Democrats, back when they were mad the Republicans took away their slaves. Make sure you get that one right in the future.

Ron Paul retired from Congress because of his age. I'm pretty disappointed because he finally got on the committee that deals with the Federal Reserve, and at least got as far as he could go concerning that, but I also feel strongly that too many Americans do not deserve Ron Paul. There are too many people stabbing Liberty in the back, and this is just them twisting the blade.

We are already over the fiscal cliff whether we are willing to admit it or not, just let it be known that there was a large group of Americans who tried to prevent it, and Ron Paul was our leader in that effort for the last decade.

This is how Ron Paul will be remembered

"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds."

God Bless you Ron Paul!

Phatscotty wrote:Those guys are just trolling. They are attacking him and lying about him because they think it annoys me and they get off on trying to get a rise out of me (even though it has never worked and never will!)

Yes dear, it's all about you.

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

The worst bit is you probably see it as a good thing since some of your favourite thinkers support [rational/ethical] egoism... *sigh*

Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

Indeed.

Symmetry wrote:The man should have said goodbye a long time ago. He's been clinging on to a leadership cult of libertarianism that served no good to the ideology that he should have advanced. He'll always be tied to the Republicans, and he's too closely associated with the racism and homophobia sent out when he was pushing for early libertarian ideals.

His era should have been past a decade ago, rather than having modern libertarians try to make excuses for why they still support a dude who stood for the bassist racism, but doesn't really mean it any more.

Hopefully, the next generation of Libertarian thought won't be weighed down by his nonsense.

Says the guy who spends his life posting on a Risk forum. When you make a contribution to society that amounts to 1% of what Mr. Paul did, let me know.
I rarely dip in name calling but only an ignorant person makes statements like those.

"His era should have been past a decade ago" What sort of statement is that? 8 years ago he almost single-handedly brought down the establishment in the Republican Party. His influence in the past decade of U.S politics has been astronomical.

I prefer Ron Swanson to Paul. Why can Swanson run for President.

puppydog85 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The man should have said goodbye a long time ago. He's been clinging on to a leadership cult of libertarianism that served no good to the ideology that he should have advanced. He'll always be tied to the Republicans, and he's too closely associated with the racism and homophobia sent out when he was pushing for early libertarian ideals.

His era should have been past a decade ago, rather than having modern libertarians try to make excuses for why they still support a dude who stood for the bassist racism, but doesn't really mean it any more.

Hopefully, the next generation of Libertarian thought won't be weighed down by his nonsense.

Says the guy who spends his life posting on a Risk forum. When you make a contribution to society that amounts to 1% of what Mr. Paul did, let me know.
I rarely dip in name calling but only an ignorant person makes statements like those.

"His era should have been past a decade ago" What sort of statement is that? 8 years ago he almost single-handedly brought down the establishment in the Republican Party. His influence in the past decade of U.S politics has been astronomical.

Yeah, dude, the Republican party is looking pretty sharp post-Paul. Not at all a party in crisis mode. If we're going for the ad-hominems, however, I would gently suggest that you avoid using ridiculous hyperbole when describing the divine Ron.

"Astronomical", really? You do need to treat him as a man, and less as a political god. That's pretty much my main point here- he gets treated as a kind of persecuted messiah.

While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

not to mention, Ron Paul was 1 of only 2 people (I think) to vote against the patriot act in when it first passed...

thegreekdog wrote:While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

Hmm, you're making excuses that don't really stand up to any degree of criticism. I get that you want to deify him, but he was kind of an asshole.

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.”

Source- WaPo- Ron Paul and the racist newsletters

I trust that you can back up your claims too TGD. It'd be awkward if you were just going on faith for this .

lmao! give it up. Ron Paul is the furthest thing from a racist.

You don't even know what racism means

You are funny sym.

I liked that switch there. Make an over the top statement and then when answered in kind, stop and draw yourself up while sneering about how kids these days cannot think rationally.

Yes, I think Paul is one of the more influential thinkers of the day. We will have to see if the future will bear that thought out though. He ranks right up there with Rove (IMHO) as a shaper of the Republican Party, I think we will see more of his influence down the road. The only reason he is not more influential is because most Americans can only think for about 2 minutes about any given subject, unless of course if it has to do with sex, in which case we will dwell on the subject ad nausuem.

Phatscotty wrote:lmao! give it up. Ron Paul is the furthest thing from a racist.

You don't even know what racism means

So you're saying that Ron Paul was some sort of saint, or patron god of not being racist?

That doesn't really gel with the hate-filled newsletters he put out, and which, at my most generous, I can only say were perhaps not representative of his current beliefs.

10 Extreme Claims in Ron Paul's Controversial Newsletters

Ron Paul's Political Report wrote:"If you live in a major city, you've probably heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

"It's the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in recent months.

[…]

"What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example.)"

Yeah, nothing crazy about that.

puppydog85 wrote:You are funny sym.

I liked that switch there. Make an over the top statement and then when answered in kind, stop and draw yourself up while sneering about how kids these days cannot think rationally.

Yes, I think Paul is one of the more influential thinkers of the day. We will have to see if the future will bear that thought out though. He ranks right up there with Rove (IMHO) as a shaper of the Republican Party, I think we will see more of his influence down the road. The only reason he is not more influential is because most Americans can only think for about 2 minutes about any given subject, unless of course if it has to do with sex, in which case we will dwell on the subject ad nausuem.

Influential is perhaps accurate, although as I pointed out, his influence ain't exactly good. Your comment is oddly reminiscent of one of Mr Paul's newsletters:

Ron Paul Newsletter, 1992 wrote:[O]pinion polls consistently show 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."

[…]

"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...[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, [but] it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

That's not something you agree with is it?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

Hmm, you're making excuses that don't really stand up to any degree of criticism. I get that you want to deify him, but he was kind of an asshole.

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.”

Source- WaPo- Ron Paul and the racist newsletters

I trust that you can back up your claims too TGD. It'd be awkward if you were just going on faith for this .

Why would I make excuses for things that don't influence my support for a politician? I find some of the things written in his newsletter offensive, but I find lots of things offensive about a lot of people and it doesn't affect for whom I vote, support, enjoy, or deify. I doubt this will influence your efforts, but it's apparent to me that your criticism of Ron Paul seems awfully similar to criticisms Phatscotty makes about Barack Obama. Ron Paul's record in Congress shows that he is not racist or bigoted. Barack Obama's record as president shows he is not a socialist. Yet you've chosen to characterize Ron Paul as racist, as Phatscotty characterizes Barack Obama as a socialist, based on something other than policy or laws.

You certainly can choose not to support Ron Paul for these reasons; I'm not going to rip you for that. But if the guy went running naked in the street tomorrow, that wouldn't make me think his ideas are incorrect.

Anyway, ad hominems aside, I'm assuming you want evidence that Ron Paul didn't know about and apologized for his newsletters. I've provided it before, but the explanations are in the Washington Post article you quoted from. So you can just click on that link again, read some more, and choose whether to believe Paul or someone else.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

Hmm, you're making excuses that don't really stand up to any degree of criticism. I get that you want to deify him, but he was kind of an asshole.

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.”

Source- WaPo- Ron Paul and the racist newsletters

I trust that you can back up your claims too TGD. It'd be awkward if you were just going on faith for this .

Why would I make excuses for things that don't influence my support for a politician? I find some of the things written in his newsletter offensive, but I find lots of things offensive about a lot of people and it doesn't affect for whom I vote, support, enjoy, or deify. I doubt this will influence your efforts, but it's apparent to me that your criticism of Ron Paul seems awfully similar to criticisms Phatscotty makes about Barack Obama. Ron Paul's record in Congress shows that he is not racist or bigoted. Barack Obama's record as president shows he is not a socialist. Yet you've chosen to characterize Ron Paul as racist, as Phatscotty characterizes Barack Obama as a socialist, based on something other than policy or laws.

You certainly can choose not to support Ron Paul for these reasons; I'm not going to rip you for that. But if the guy went running naked in the street tomorrow, that wouldn't make me think his ideas are incorrect.

Anyway, ad hominems aside, I'm assuming you want evidence that Ron Paul didn't know about and apologized for his newsletters. I've provided it before, but the explanations are in the Washington Post article you quoted from. So you can just click on that link again, read some more, and choose whether to believe Paul or someone else.

I'm well aware of the multiple layers of excuses Paul has provided for his racist stuff. Even the most die-hard Paulite would have to admit that they are contradictory at best.

If I remember correctly, you were disappointed when I pointed out the virulent homophobia he was putting out in his newsletters. I'm not sure how many excuses a sane person can make to still think Paul isn't kind of weird (again, this is my most generous view).

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

Hmm, you're making excuses that don't really stand up to any degree of criticism. I get that you want to deify him, but he was kind of an asshole.

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.”

Source- WaPo- Ron Paul and the racist newsletters

I trust that you can back up your claims too TGD. It'd be awkward if you were just going on faith for this .

Why would I make excuses for things that don't influence my support for a politician? I find some of the things written in his newsletter offensive, but I find lots of things offensive about a lot of people and it doesn't affect for whom I vote, support, enjoy, or deify. I doubt this will influence your efforts, but it's apparent to me that your criticism of Ron Paul seems awfully similar to criticisms Phatscotty makes about Barack Obama. Ron Paul's record in Congress shows that he is not racist or bigoted. Barack Obama's record as president shows he is not a socialist. Yet you've chosen to characterize Ron Paul as racist, as Phatscotty characterizes Barack Obama as a socialist, based on something other than policy or laws.

You certainly can choose not to support Ron Paul for these reasons; I'm not going to rip you for that. But if the guy went running naked in the street tomorrow, that wouldn't make me think his ideas are incorrect.

Anyway, ad hominems aside, I'm assuming you want evidence that Ron Paul didn't know about and apologized for his newsletters. I've provided it before, but the explanations are in the Washington Post article you quoted from. So you can just click on that link again, read some more, and choose whether to believe Paul or someone else.

and maybe he's just an ignorant foreigner. Symm can't even vote in America, but he goes on and on and on.....

Symmetry is an enemy of America, plain and simple. Anything Symm supports concerning America, you can bet your sweet ass it's because he knows it's bad for America, and good for his view of the world.

Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry is an enemy of America, plain and simple.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:While Ron Paul's two racist editions of his newsletters (which he has explained were not reviewed by him and which he nevertheless apologized for) are troublesome in a very small way, I pay virtually no attention to that sort of nonsense. In similar fashion, I chose not to vote for Obama for reasons other than when he referred to "socialism" in his college career or that he was an active churchgoer at a black separatist church. These sorts of things tend to get blown out of proportion and don't affect policymaking at all.

Ron Paul had an outstanding career as a Congressman. He stood by his principles of small government in fiscal and social matters when all those around him did not. He elucidated that the power of the people was more important than the power of the state, when those from both parties sought to increase the power of the state (and thus, themselves). For that I will miss him.

Hmm, you're making excuses that don't really stand up to any degree of criticism. I get that you want to deify him, but he was kind of an asshole.

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.”

Source- WaPo- Ron Paul and the racist newsletters

I trust that you can back up your claims too TGD. It'd be awkward if you were just going on faith for this .

Why would I make excuses for things that don't influence my support for a politician? I find some of the things written in his newsletter offensive, but I find lots of things offensive about a lot of people and it doesn't affect for whom I vote, support, enjoy, or deify. I doubt this will influence your efforts, but it's apparent to me that your criticism of Ron Paul seems awfully similar to criticisms Phatscotty makes about Barack Obama. Ron Paul's record in Congress shows that he is not racist or bigoted. Barack Obama's record as president shows he is not a socialist. Yet you've chosen to characterize Ron Paul as racist, as Phatscotty characterizes Barack Obama as a socialist, based on something other than policy or laws.

You certainly can choose not to support Ron Paul for these reasons; I'm not going to rip you for that. But if the guy went running naked in the street tomorrow, that wouldn't make me think his ideas are incorrect.

Anyway, ad hominems aside, I'm assuming you want evidence that Ron Paul didn't know about and apologized for his newsletters. I've provided it before, but the explanations are in the Washington Post article you quoted from. So you can just click on that link again, read some more, and choose whether to believe Paul or someone else.

I'm well aware of the multiple layers of excuses Paul has provided for his racist stuff. Even the most die-hard Paulite would have to admit that they are contradictory at best.

If I remember correctly, you were disappointed when I pointed out the virulent homophobia he was putting out in his newsletters. I'm not sure how many excuses a sane person can make to still think Paul isn't kind of weird (again, this is my most generous view).

I'm trying to think of other ways to write this so that you can understand, but I'm running low so I'll try to type slowly. I'm... not... making... excuses... for... Ron... Paul.

Not anymore you're not.

here is Ron Paul's farewell speech.