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 newslettersI 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.