If you gotta go back to the 1980s to cherry-pick quotes, I would say the guy is in pretty good shape.
He’s not my cup of tea, but not because of this nonsense.
If all you’ve got to criticize the guy with is some 15-year-old newsletter taken out of context, you don’t have much.
Criticizing "ethnic" lobbies does not make one a racist. Ethnic politics makes my stomach turn, although I accept it as a fact of life.
I say this, btw, as someone who strongly disagrees with RP on foreign policy, supports Israel's struggle against the Koranimals, and think Kennedy BETRAYED the brave brigadiers on the beaches of Cuba. My interests are shared with those respective ethnic lobbies because they are in AMERICA'S interest, not because I really find ethnic politics to be a benefit in and of itself.
To me, this isn’t as powerful as his “anti-war” statement from the recent debate. Based on that, I have no use for him unless he ends up the Republican nominee.
Deliberately painting opposition to Israeli foreign policy as anti-Semitism is the cheapest kind of lie. Thanks for posting this...but you forgot the [BARF ALERT].
None of this stuff matters. Leave the man alone.
Ron Paul will disappear like the morning mist as soon as the voting begins.
He also wrote: “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.”
I suppose this grim statistic sharply differentiates blacks from caucasians, whose support for said political sensibility vaults all the way up to 6 or 7%.
I couldn’t begin to understand why Ron Paul was among the “debater” panel, while Fred Thompson was not. Is it because Thompson has not in some formal, official, bureaucratic sense announced his candidacy?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205
From an interview with Texas Monthly:
-------------------------
In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "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." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
BTW, Ron Paul doesn't care if he wins or loses; only to his hysterical bashers who wouldn't know the Constitution if it walked up and smiled at you does it matter. His objective in the race is to push the other Republicans towards a more Constitutional stance.
You've got nothing here, nothing but yet another desperate hit-piece on orders from the GOP establishment.
As a dedicated Zionist, Ron Paul can cut his wrists.
Ping
But, but...blacks are fleet footed aren’t they? I mean, why did woody harrelson make that movie called “white men can’t jump”?
Just imagine if we could harness all the energy from the keystrokes of all these Ron Paul threads. We could likely power 1,000 U.S. homes for a year. Other than that I cannot imagine what purpose all this discussion about Paul serves. He will never be a nominee or a president.
ROFL. $7 million and counting, more Money Bombs on the way. Leading all GOP candidates in fundraising and grassroots support. Your desperation is pathetic.
How can a man who supports Martin Luther King and Ghandi be a racist? This is obvious slander. Besides that he believes in getting rid of the race description of people on a whole. How can he be a racist if he wants to get rid of the categorization of people under races. Under him we would all be Americans and not split up into different races. This is what he means by individual liberty. Give me a break. Read, research and don’t be submitted to the propaganda machine that is trying to bring him down!