The Company Ron Paul Keeps

[tpfkaw]

Maybe he liked the money he made ... a million bucks or something.

Well, that's just an outright lie, the non-profit he set up made a million bucks, Paul was never an employee of them nor did he receive a salary from them.

[Torie]

Maybe he liked the money he made ... a million bucks or something.

Well, that's just an outright lie, the non-profit he set up made a million bucks, Paul was never an employee of them nor did he receive a salary from them.

What happened to the money?  Or is it just missing in a Corzine like fashion?   But yes, you may be right that Paul did it more out of love than for the money as it were.

[tpfkaw]

Maybe he liked the money he made ... a million bucks or something.

Well, that's just an outright lie, the non-profit he set up made a million bucks, Paul was never an employee of them nor did he receive a salary from them.

What happened to the money?  Or is it just missing in a Corzine like fashion?   But yes, you may be right that Paul did it more out of love than for the money as it were.

It went to sending out more newsletters and free copies of Paul's books (which he actually did write and, disregarding the content and just looking at the writing style, obviously were not written by the same person).  When is that apology re Mormonism's opinions of black people coming from Romney?

[Torie]

Maybe he liked the money he made ... a million bucks or something.

Well, that's just an outright lie, the non-profit he set up made a million bucks, Paul was never an employee of them nor did he receive a salary from them.

What happened to the money?  Or is it just missing in a Corzine like fashion?   But yes, you may be right that Paul did it more out of love than for the money as it were.

It went to sending out more newsletters and free copies of Paul's books (which he actually did write and, disregarding the content and just looking at the writing style, obviously were not written by the same person).  When is that apology re Mormonism's opinions of black people coming from Romney?

The LDS Church itself apologized for that. That sounds a bit like guilt by association. Of course, I think religions have all sorts of strange beliefs often, but then I am not a person of faith. I have this vague recollection that Mitt's father agitated with the elders for a "revelation" that blacks were equally fit to enter the celestial kingdom. And that is the thing too ... the discrimination was about the metaphysical hereafter, not about keeping black persons down during their sojourn on this mortal coil. Heck Christianity suggests that I am going straight to hell when I die, although hell itself as a concept has lost its appeal in general I admit. I think I am slated for some variant of limbo now, or maybe they have actually stumbled into the "truth," and I am just going to return to dust, and become fertilizer, and that's it.

Anyhoo, I don't "give a damn" what folks think will happen to me after I die. I just don't. Why should I care?  Make sense?

[WillK]

Are all of you young folks aware of Paul's sordid past when it comes to indulging in yes, either bigotry or something that certainly might confuse one into coming to that conclusion?  Yes, Paul's nuttery verging on paranoia goes way beyond  fiat currency gold buggery, a laissez faire foreign policy, and the like. If not, it is time to get up to speed perhaps.

Paul is unfit for office. Period. JMO.

Your real problem is that none of the republican candidates are fit to be president. 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

To those wondering wether or not Dr. Paul is a "born again", he is.  Thinking he's of a rather conservative Baptist persuasion. I know of quite a few Independant Baptists in my area that supported him in 2008 and will likely do so again.

[TheGlobalizer]

Torie, IMO, this sort of criticism is beneath you.  This is standard-fare dirt-digging by a frightened beltway establishment GOP.

I think it's entirely fair to raise the issue of judgment, but if Ron responds appropriately it should be a mostly settled issue as to racism.

[Oakvale]

Torie, IMO, this sort of criticism is beneath you.  This is standard-fare dirt-digging by a frightened beltway establishment GOP.

I think it's entirely fair to raise the issue of judgment, but if Ron responds appropriately it should be a mostly settled issue as to racism.

Oh bullsh!t, don't act like it's typical mudslinging politics to bring up Paul's history of extremely poor judgement. He publishes a series of newsletters with really vitrolic racist and homophobic content for several years and no-one can even bring it up? Please.

BTW, when these quotes first surfaced in 1996, Paul didn't deny authorship and actually defended the comments by saying that they were in the context of - and I quote - "current events and statistical reports of the time".

Even if you buy that Paul didn't write this, he

A) Associates with people who did
B) Was clearly okay with them being published

His opposition to the Civil Rights Act, for example, is on record and has nothing to do with the newsletters. Personally, I don't think someone who opposes legislating to ensure basic rights for African-Americans is fit to be President.

[Lief 🗽]

Meh, it's no worse than the company Mitt Romney keeps: Mormons and job-killing business executives.

[Oakvale]

Meh, it's no worse than the company Mitt Romney keeps: Mormons and job-killing business executives.

I don't like Romney, but I don't think it's fair to compare members of a religion and some capitalists to white supremacists.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Torie, IMO, this sort of criticism is beneath you.  This is standard-fare dirt-digging by a frightened beltway establishment GOP.

I think it's entirely fair to raise the issue of judgment, but if Ron responds appropriately it should be a mostly settled issue as to racism.

Oh bullsh!t, don't act like it's typical mudslinging politics to bring up Paul's history of extremely poor judgement. He publishes a series of newsletters with really vitrolic racist and homophobic content for several years and no-one can even bring it up? Please.

BTW, when these quotes first surfaced in 1996, Paul didn't deny authorship and actually defended the comments by saying that they were in the context of - and I quote - "current events and statistical reports of the time".

Even if you buy that Paul didn't write this, he

A) Associates with people who did
B) Was clearly okay with them being published

His opposition to the Civil Rights Act, for example, is on record and has nothing to do with the newsletters. Personally, I don't think someone who opposes legislating to ensure basic rights for African-Americans is fit to be President.

Funny, that was covered a couple of posts ago. Specifically,

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It helps to read the thread before posting nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed it is. Specifically, he agrees with the vast majority of it, but a very specific section (specifically designating businesses as public venues and forcing "equal treatment) he doesn't and thus he opposes it. If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

[BigSkyBob]

Are all of you young folks aware of Paul's sordid past when it comes to indulging in yes, either bigotry or something that certainly might confuse one into coming to that conclusion?  Yes, Paul's nuttery verging on paranoia goes way beyond  fiat currency gold buggery, a laissez faire foreign policy, and the like. If not, it is time to get up to speed perhaps.

Paul is unfit for office. Period. JMO.

Your real problem is that none of the republican candidates are fit to be president. 

Given the fact that the only Democratic candidate is Barack Obama, you don't really have the moral authority to argue that point.

[Zarn]

It's amazing on how people argue in this thread that Paul is racist, even after it is disproved.

The funny thing is that this is coming from the very people that cannot trust Muslims or gays. Santorum, are you viewing this thread? Admit it buddy, we know you are here somewhere.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's amazing on how people argue in this thread that Paul is racist, even after it is disproved.

The funny thing is that this is coming from the very people that cannot trust Muslims or gays. Santorum, are you viewing this thread? Admit it buddy, we know you are here somewhere.

How can one ever really disprove he is racist or bigoted?

[Zarn]

It's amazing on how people argue in this thread that Paul is racist, even after it is disproved.

The funny thing is that this is coming from the very people that cannot trust Muslims or gays. Santorum, are you viewing this thread? Admit it buddy, we know you are here somewhere.

How can one ever really disprove he is racist or bigoted?

He has consistently rammed against it. It is the complete opposite of his ideology. I remember one body language expert watched the GOP candidates in a debate. Paul was the only one that came off as 100% genuine to her. She certainly was not a Paul supporter. The man is clearly not a liar. People are just used to politicians lying, I guess.

[Oakvale]

I remember one body language expert watched the GOP candidates in a debate. Paul was the only one that came off as 100% genuine to her.

*dying*

[Simfan34]

It's amazing on how people argue in this thread that Paul is racist, even after it is disproved.

The funny thing is that this is coming from the very people that cannot trust Muslims or gays. Santorum, are you viewing this thread? Admit it buddy, we know you are here somewhere.

I could trust them both, yet I agree with all the assertions made in the original topic.

[Torie]

It's amazing on how people argue in this thread that Paul is racist, even after it is disproved.

The funny thing is that this is coming from the very people that cannot trust Muslims or gays. Santorum, are you viewing this thread? Admit it buddy, we know you are here somewhere.

I could trust them both, yet I agree with all the assertions made in the original topic.

Yes, that assertion seems to me to be a rather curious conflation.

I am a bit surprised how much controversy my little thread caused. Heck, I seem to have lost some "friends" over it. I hope folks forgive me.

[Badger]

Bless you Torie.

No matter how much Paul defended the articles in HIS magazine, and no matter how repeatedly the "ghostwriters" wrote these screeds "without his knowledge" and no matter how uniformly Paul has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation to pass Congress--including even today objecting to the 64 CRA--the answers from his fanboys are utterly predictable and unswaying, facts be damned.

[Ebowed]

If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a ham-fisted law that does nothing to solve complex issues, why can blacks eat at all white-owned restaurants?

[BigSkyBob]

Bless you Torie.

No matter how much Paul defended the articles in HIS magazine, and no matter how repeatedly the "ghostwriters" wrote these screeds "without his knowledge" and no matter how uniformly Paul has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation to pass Congress--including even today objecting to the 64 CRA--the answers from his fanboys are utterly predictable and unswaying, facts be damned.

Whether, or not, Ron Paul wrote the articles in question is one issue.

His consistent opposition to "civil rights legislation" is a predictable consequence of taking his principles seriously. Those principles happen to be both profoundly anti-racist.

[Jacobtm]

Ron Paul is less racist than the other GOP candidates, and doesn't want to lock up muslims forever without a trial.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'd be more wary of a candidate who keeps company with the Weekly Standard crew.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If anything, one could argue supporters of it are racist; why can't a black man keep a member of the KKK from eating at his restaurant? It does absolutely nothing to solve complex issues, which require changes in beliefs from all people, not ham-fisted laws.

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a ham-fisted law that does nothing to solve complex issues, why can blacks eat at all white-owned restaurants?

If Glass-Steagall's repeal was bad, why did it let banks act both as investment banks AND commercial banks as was intended?

It certainly hasn't solved racial tension in the slightest, nor has it led to much improvement in living standard. I'm sure KKK members eating at black-owned restaurants appreciate it, though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Haha, lolbertarians trying to pretend that they aren't racists.