Historical Society reveals Ron Paul's incendiary past [not about Paul, about the library]

Capital Times ^ | 1-11-08 | Doug Moe

[SJackson]

There are two ways out for Paul:

There's also his current strategy, point out tha libertarians can't be racist (blacks can't be racists either, arabs can't be antisemites), and continue to point out that when he pardons all non-violent drug criminals, that will help blacks. I can't believe he included that in his denial.

[wideawake]

I can't believe he included that in his denial.

That was pretty amazing.

[militem]

I think he is trying to say that he promotes individual rights, which is the antithesis of collectivism. Collectivism is about putting people into groups, and recognizing rights as being apart of that group. Rand said “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage . . . . Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged not by his own character and actions, but by characteristics and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

That is what he means when he says libertarians can’t be racist.

[GunRunner]

Curious - what did you think of Paul's response about Israel last night?

If I was completely ignorant of Ron Paul's pandering to anti-Israeli Arab-Americans and his ridiculous statements about the suffering of Palestinians, I would have thought it was a decent answer.

But I know he has another agenda at work, and its very clearly hostile to Israel.

[SJackson]

That may be what he means, but that’s not what he said and frankly it’s an absurd arguement. Libertarians can clearly be racists. I think Paul is a racist, and he’s a libertarian. Whoever wrote the articles in question, if not Paul, is a racist, and likely a libertarian. He should have left that arguement alone.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“I didn’t hear it, but if you go by what Paul says, he has no policy toward Israel, any more than he has a policy toware Korea, Taiwan, Japan or Europe. Our troops will be withdrawn from around the world and essentially we’ll have no foreign policy, only trade.”

Here’s what he’s said. Hard to disagree with this assessment!

PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don’t let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.

I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.

(APPLAUSE)

And I just don’t see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they’d be a lot better off.

I think they, one time in the ‘80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.

But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.

PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don’t have any money to do this.

[Bogtrotter52]

Ron Paul has now been exposed. His excuse is lame. And it is oh so much fun listening to his loyal robots try and defend him. He was never a contender, was always toast, and was done (complete with fork) from day one. Now he can slither off to obscurity.

[Bogtrotter52]

“I would not believe a word that they say!”

And you would not believe a original document set before your eyes either? Not everything is a conspiracy.

[SJackson]

That's a sound bite not a policy, and it's consistent with his intent to withdraw American presence from around the globe. Clearly Israel would be free of American interference, as would all of our other allies. In the case of other allies it would entail multiple violations of treaties and agreements, in Israel's case only the moral obligation stemming from the treaty with Egypt to maintain Israeli military superiority. Paul would have no objection to selling arms to the Arab states.

Were we to believe things like the ads run by his supporters in the run-up to his appearance at the Arab American Institute, clearly Paul is the anti-Israel candidate.

His newsletters take it further, awards for one-state advocates, ironically an MK from a party subsequently banned in Israel, and support for the idea that the mossad was involved in the Trade Center Bombing.

But I understand Paul isn't responsible for what's said in his name, so I guess we ignore his nuttiness. But he has no credible foreign policy.

[JerseyHighlander]

This is a article based on lack of knowledge. Almost all of Ron Paul's publications are also housed in Washington DC in the Library of Congress. Freeper LSUFan and his coworkers did the footwork and searched and scanned a small part of Ron Paul's prior publications housedin the LoC collection, there is plenty more there to be searched through, LSUFan and his coworkers were doing this yeomen work during lunch hours.

To: shove_it

RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM

Ron Paul: US "military is mowing civilians down in the streets"
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists

Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms

Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan

RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Ron Paul: Clinton didn't cut defense enough

 

3 posted on 11/10/2007 5:59:28 AM PST by SJackson

RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM

Ron Paul: US "military is mowing civilians down in the streets"
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists

Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms

Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan

RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING

Ron Paul: Clinton didn't cut defense enough

 

[Lurking Libertarian]

a newsletter was published under my name

Note the use of the passive voice.

[DogandPonyShow]

To all Paulistinians:

Your irrational rationalization of that whacko is pathetic.

Get the hook and get that idiot off the stage

---

When you can’t attack the ideas, make a personal attack. I’m sure you scream and curdle when the MSM does it to your candidate of choice.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

The idea at hand is that Paul is a real whacko...THAT is the message.

[swmobuffalo]

bump

[tacticalogic]

The idea at hand is that Paul is a real whacko...THAT is the message.

That's why he can't address the accusations of racism. He knows the real objective is to destroy him politically because of his position on the war in Iraq, and that no answer he gives will satisfy his accusers. It will only result in more accusations.

[DogandPonyShow]

I don’t care if he wants to nuke Iraq back to the stone age or install a new caliphate there. The man is unbalanced and should not ever be in any elected office including dogcatcher. IT’S OBVIOUS!

Give me a break.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t care if he wants to nuke Iraq back to the stone age or install a new caliphate there. The man is unbalanced and should not ever be in any elected office including dogcatcher. IT’S OBVIOUS!

Give me a break.

I'm just stating the truth of the matter. What kind of "break" do you think you need from that?

[DogandPonyShow]

Wrong. The reason to destroy him is that he is a whacko. It has nothing to do with his stance on the war.

Look, if you want anything to do with him in any way, stop posting to me, got it?

[Proud2BeRight]

“That’s why he can’t address the accusations of racism. He knows the real objective is to destroy him politically because of his position on the war in Iraq, and that no answer he gives will satisfy his accusers. It will only result in more accusations.”

He knows that he cannot address the issue because he said he wrote the offensive letters in 1996 and said he did not in 2008. If he wrote the letters, he will be seen as a racist conspiracy theory nutjob. If he didn’t write the letters he will be seen as a complete incompetent who lets two decades of whackjob newsletters be published under his name.

Of course he “can’t address the accusations”. He has dug himself into a deep hole of lunacy and he wants to stop digging.

[tacticalogic]

Wrong. The reason to destroy him is that he is a whacko. It has nothing to do with his stance on the war.

Pure snakeoil.