The point is that Paul clearly did associate with a rather odious racist who wrote articles in Paul’s name, and Paul seems to have protected his bigoted employee from any culpability for those intolerant articles. So his associations seem to go beyond passively receiving checks from bigots; he employed a bigot for the better part of a decade and has never explained what he did to the true author.
-
Cite?
-
Are you sure he “wrote articles in Paul’s name”? That is, it was Paul’s name listed as the author?
-
In the past I had a couple of employees that were bigots. I had a few colleagues that were bigots. I have a couple family members that are bigots. I am sure so do/did you. Should these “associations” reflect badly on us?
You stated that you don’t think Paul is a racist. Cool. What’s your problem with him then? He’s not a racist. That’s good enough for me.
Oh and as I showed above Obama clearly did associate with a rather odious racist (Shabazz). I cannot find anything indicating he at some point publicly repudiated Shabazz. Can you?
Um, because a) inconvenience, b) you have strangers combing through your roommate’s pron collection, c) any other sort of legal albeit embarrassing items, d) disruption, or e) possibilities that you don’t want to even have to game out? This didn’t occur to you? Really? Don’t you think your arguments are a str–r-r-e-e-e-etch?
ETA: “2. Are you sure he “wrote articles in Paul’s name”? That is, it was Paul’s name listed as the author?”
Yeah, we are. It’s the Ron Paul newsletter.
I see. So Paul’s name was not listed as the author then. Gotcha.
So subscribers were supposed to assume all along that the Ron Paul newsletter was not authored by Ron Paul? Or that bigotry in Ron Paul’s fundraising letter was not actually expressed by Ron Paul? Gotcha.
Regarding this tu quoque nonsense with Obama - at least he felt obliged to repudiate statements made by his pastor, Reverend Wright.
"“I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies,” Obama wrote. “I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.”
Contrast that statement with remarks made by Ron Paul when pressed on his racist support.
*"The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.
But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul"*
His “repudiation” of bigots seems just a trifle lukewarm, wouldn’t you say? Plus he’s keeping their money.
Link. As said before, these articles were published in the Ron Paul Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter as though he wrote them.
No, I am not aware of working or being friends with any bigots, so far as I know. Actually, I knew at least one older guy who definitely had a racist past, but had repudiated it, and he often stated what a mistake it was to have held those views. There is a difference between having bigots as coworkers (a case not really under anyone’s control) and being a politician and being able to choose who you associate with. I will also say it is surprising how many bigots you have known! Since I don’t know the full circumstances of the case, and keeping in mind this is a good-natured debate, I will not even consider the question of how that reflects on yourself. You can make that determination for yourself, and I will not comment on it in this forum.
He’s an out-of-touch politician with fanatical support that has demonstrably terrible ideas that would set this country back a hundred years. Other than that, I have no problem with him.
I see that the furor is primarily about one photo taken in 2007 in Selma, Alabama in which Shabazz and Obama were photographed sharing the same stage. It turns out Hillary Clinton was at the same event, so already I’m a little skeptical that this is just a right-wing blogosphere tempest in a teapot.
Then it turns out that Shabazz has repudiated Obama because Obama is not a radical racist:
That’s sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Shabazz and Obama are not on the same page.
So you don’t think he’s a racist but you keep bringing up the racist angle. Why?
Shabazz endorsed Obama in 2008. Just because he reversed himself later doesn’t take away the earlier endorsement and the benefits Obama received from it. I also gave you links to other “odious racists” endorsing Obama and Obama not repudiating them.
You seem to have a double standard. In both cases the politician is endorsed and supported by an “odious racist”, does not repudiate the support and the endorsement, but in one case you give him a pass and in the other case you condemn him.
In the case of Shabazz, it seems that nobody even knew about this until the fall of 2011. I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody even knew who the heck was on the stage with Obama at the time. It seems unreasonable to demand a repudiation for something that happened 5 years ago that was just recently discovered. In the case of Paul, everyone knew about the contribution. It wasn’t a case of damning someone for silence, the Paul campaign said, "We are NOT returning the money.
And in the case of Tom Metzger, let’s get real here. Racist endorses black man for president, and you think the black man needs to comment on such a ludicrous event?
Again, I’m criticizing someone not for the absence of comment, for for the substance of the comment they did give.
Besides the false equivalence you keep promoting, you might consider that in Paul’s case he has many other undesirable attitudes and policies (some of which have been touched on here). Profiting from racist associations (and engaging in implausible deniability on his own past statements) is the rancid icing on the cake.
If in 2008 it had surfaced that Obama had issued newsletters with revoltingly racist comments, refused to accept responsibility for them and was taking cash from the New Black Panther Party and similar types, I would not have voted for him (actually it is highly unlikely I will vote for him in 2012 for obviously different reasons).
Even if you think Obama is as bad as Paul from a racist perspective (and I don’t think you believe that), there are other Republicans who don’t have Paul’s bad history on this score, don’t fantasize about reliving the good old days of 1850 (at least, not to the same extent) and who are more deserving of support.
More excuses. Obama knew about it. Shabazz endorsed Obama’s candidacy right on Obama’s web site.
Yes, Obama is just as “bad as Paul from a racist perspective”, in that neither of them are racist.
And I don’t support Paul’s candidacy. Or Obama’s. Or any other candidate’s.
Right. Valid, pertinent excuses that highlight a real difference between the two situations, but excuses none the less.
Since Obama knew about it, “nobody knew about it” is a falsehood.
Wait, I see now that the New Black Panther Party’s endorsement was removed from Obama’s campaign website: cite.
So… anything else to talk about?
And yet Obama didn’t repudiate the endorsement.
Ha!
ETA: Hold on a second – do you believe that Obama has conclusively proven himself to be an American citizen? Because if you’re slicing hairs this finely, then maybe you think a “certificate of live birth” isn’t the same as a “birth certificate.”
Non-sequitur.
Was 9/11 an inside job, too?
Its amusing the lengths people go to make Ron Paul out be “crazy.” In fact, everything he says is absolutely right. I sometimes wonder where I would be today if i never heard of Ron Paul, Austrian economics, and libertarianism. But first, a quick background. My parents came to the US to escape their war-torn nation. I have inherited their hatred for war and all its promoters and supporters. I came across Paul when he was speaking out against intervention in Iraq and completely agreed with him on the stupidity of it all. He was also talking about the housing bubble. As i looked more into it, I started to realize I completely agreed with Austrian economics as a whole. After a few years, I finally put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and sold my home and bought gold bullion. I also got a lease on an apartment that would soon prove to be a bargain. Needless to say, my investments have paid off stupendously. Gold has more than quintupled since then. I also have silver bullion, along with stocks in gold mining and silver mining companies, if anyone is curious about my portfolio.
The fact is, the US dollar is losing its reserve currency status. Iran is just one of many future oil producers who will sell their oil in other currencies, including gold. the current global financial system has only been around since 1971. The US has been exporting its inflation to foreign dollar holders, but that will come to an end. gold and silver will be once again recognized as money.
Libertarianism itself can be summed up in just four things, individual liberty, voluntary association, voluntary contacts, and property rights. Ron Paul is a constitutional libertarian. His stance on abortion and gay marriage is simple: the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit or legalize either of them. It sounds counter-intuitive, but he supports the states that legalized gay marriage as well as the states that havent. Hes personally against government being involved in marriage altogether, as marriage licenses were created to prevent interracial marriages. It wouldnt matter if someone is married or single, or has children or no children, because all individuals would face the same federal income tax. Theres no need for marriage to confer tax benefits since there would be no income tax under a Paul adminstration.
The same goes for abortion. The Sancitity of Life Act someone brought up would use the constitutional authority of Congress to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on the matter of abortion. Before Roe vs Wade, 20 states had already legalized abortion. The fact of the matter is, even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, most states would legalize it, assuming there are still laws on the books that prohibit it. And Ron Paul even said in his book that abortion and morality go hand in hand. And that even if it was banned in one state, the doctors would just ignore it and continue to perform them, just like they did in the 70’s. And before long, women’s organizations would descend on the state legislature and quickly get it overturned. But even still, Roe vs Wade should be overturned, if only on principle of states rights.
Lastly, someone talked about the Civil Rights Act. This is unconstitutional because it violates property rights. People have the right to exclude others from their home, their car, and their business. It does not matter what the reason is. The same applies to employees. People have the right to hire whoever they want. The whole idea of “diversity hires” hurts productivity, as unqualified women and people of color are hired to avoid lawsuits. And outside of police officers who dont like people who drive nice cars, I have never been discriminated against. If anything, I was discriminated against by other black Americans while I was growing up, for not being a descendant of slaves, and instead being an actual African who was born in America.
I support Ron Paul simply because he is the best candidate. No one comes close. I met him back during his last election run, and do not for one second believe him to be a racist. But more to the point, even if he WAS, it would be irrelevant. He is a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and will scale back the federal government to where it constitutionally should be. The willful ignorance of the US Constitution is dangerous. Because without following the rule of law, the country will devolve into the same totalitarian state my parents fled.
With all that being said, I have no false hope of a Paul presidency. The blatant election fraud in Iowa dispelled me of all that. I have come to terms with Romney winning the primary, then losing to Obama in election, despite his growing unpopularity. It will be entirely because Romney is a flip-flopper, and the entire election will be a redux of 2004, a la John Kerry. But Ron Paul’s legacy will live on. The libertarian base of the GOP has double and even tripled in every state. This trend will continue, and the youth will help take over the GOP from within. The neocons and social conservatives will either fall in line or be shoved out of the party, possibly even running over to the Democrats(it wouldnt be the first time politicians shuffle between both parties). and it will be…satisfying, to say the least.
Also, theres no need for anyone to reply to this comment. I have no intention of posting any further. Just the title compelled me to reply why this black man supports Ron Paul. I will be writing his name in the general election, as I see no difference between Romney or Obama.
Did Obama receive any money from Black supremacists? If so, would he be compelled to return it in light of his support of policies like Affirmative Action, which benefit those groups?