Quotes from Ron Paul:
First, I’ll quote Ron Paul from Lib’s Cite(2007). Then I’ll add Mr. Moto’s Ron Paul cites from 1992.
Do we notice anything here?
*disclaimer–I didn’t check to see if Ron Paul actually, personally, said or wrote those quotes from the link in 1992.
The optimistic interpretation is that he’s grown up a lot in the last 15 years. Not likely, but wouldn’t it be cool if that were the case?
Of course, then he’d be running for something other than the Republican nomination…
ETA: Looking at the article rather than samclem’s pull quote, it does not sound like he’s grown up, just that he’s polished his rhetoric. How sad.
The same Ron Paul who made a monumental ass of himself in the last debate by announcing that the USA was responsible for 9/11. And you’re going to give money to his campaign.
Doesn’t speak well for your political savvy. Ron Paul is a moonbat and has been for years. I’m sad to say that he hails from just down the road in Lake Jackson. He’s a public disgrace and I sincerely hope the LJ folks hand him a pink slip come next elections.
From Mr. Moto’s article:
Very carefully selected, no doubt. 
I’m surprised that ol’ Lefty and his staff were so kind to Paul, lifting from context only factually and statistically accurate remarks. Surely, in that ten year span, Paul had written something that was actually wrong.
Fortunately, I recall reading some of his stuff from that period. Unfortunately, I can’t produce it or link to any of it. But I do recall the context from one of them specifically: that 5% of blacks support the free market, etc. Like any person here would do, he called his own position “sensible”. But the context of the statistic was that he was suggesting that libertarians reach out to blacks, that it had ignored them in the past to its own detriment. He wanted to push the number up, not just report on the number as some comment about the black race.
And the anti-semite thing? C’mon. If bashing Israel is anti-semitic, then this board is a clarion of racism. Well, it isn’t and it isn’t.
He did not announce that the USA was responsible for 9/11. He was trying to explain why we were attacked. They are not the same thing.
They’re trying to silence Paul because he threatens to neuter the work horse of the Republican stable, 9/11. If the people think that there may have been some motivation for the attacks other than hating freedom, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, then perhaps the people will also figure out the incredible incompetence that is now the hallmark of Republican foreign policy. If your enemy is the bogeyman that just hates America, it’s easier to scare the public into keeping you in power than if the enemy merely reacts to what America does.
I’ll have you know I’m at savvy level ninety and with just nine hundred thousand more dollars, I’ll be cleared to board Xenu’s spaceship.
But really. What Shibboleth said.
Unfortunately, I can. The remarks do not get any better in context.
What’s wrong with it? He stated the facts and called them “shocking”. It was an article about government (Bush Sr.) feeding an entitlement mentality. It chastised black leaders who enabled black rioters. Whites and Asians and light skinned Hispanics were indeed the objects of black rage in those riots in those cities. Blacks are not (or ought not to be) above being called out when they fuck up. And it is no more racist to speak of them as a group when they behave as a group than it is to say that, as a group, they are good decent people, which is exactly what he said of the ones who weren’t participating in all that shit. Making blacks into unassailable sacred cows is not doing them any favors, and is something the majority of them likely don’t want.
But it may as well be this as anything else that brings him down. I reckon. The powers that be would not have let him get very far. The mainstream Democrats and Republicans have succeeded for this long in hoodooing a gullible public, and that’ll just continue on. Every four years a new batch of suckers arises, believing the lies and falling for the hype. It would serve the Idiot Cheesers right if they get Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton.
He also stated a few non-facts, such as that 95% of black males (specifically in the District of Columbia, but, in his words, “who doubts” that it’s similar in all cities?) are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal”. Even accepting his arrest statistics at face value, much of this “criminality” would involve drugs, which Paul thinks should be legal.
The entire article reeks of the same racialist, us-versus-them mentality that Paul is ostensibly decrying. It reads as if it were written by a more literate Archie Bunker stuck in a time warp in which it will always be 1968. The assertion that Communists are behind riots in the ghettos (I’m surprised he didn’t use the phrase “outside agitators”), three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was a risible resurrection of a once-popular 1960’s war horse.
As a libertarian, I dread seeing Paul gain traction in the presidential campaign, because if he does, these writings will get wider circulation, and reinforce the stereotype that libertarians are crackpots, racists, and survivalists.
Now teh FoxNews talking point has morphed into “Ron Paul believed Bush knew 9/11 was coming”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/smearing_paul.html
If so, then Ron Paul agrees with 35% of Democrats, according to a recent Rasmussen poll.
So, one Republican is bat shit crazy, and millions of Democrats. Sounds about right to me.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not what he said. He said that overreaching American foreign policy of sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong invites such attacks. Not that Bush knew of 9/11 specifically and let it happen.
I presume you have a quote that shows Paul stated that Bush knew 9/11 was coming?
I rather doubt Bush knew the attack was coming that day, but only because he ignored intelligence warnings that an attack was imminent.
Ah, nice to see that Shodan is happy to celebrate a lie, in addition to pussying out on the religion thread.
I had known about the crackpot and survivalist caricatures, but the racist one is new to me. Just out of curiosity, how do people connect the dots from noncoercion to racism? Is it because noncoercion is intended to protect bigots just as it does everyone else? If so, then why don’t people think “freedom of speech” should cover only speech they agree with?
I refer to you to Post #116. Mr. Moto, like a stopped clock, is occasionally correct.
Probably because the survivalists, militias, and white supremacist groups often call themselves libertarians and use the same catch-phrases about the evils of the government and “political correctness.”
ETA: This one is a hoot. http://nazi.org/nazi/national_socialism/ “Libertarian National Socialist Green Party” That makes my head hurt.
Sounds like they’re throwing out every single fringe political party name in the hopes that one of them will stick to ignorant people who attach themselves to labels over ideals.
Watch this. Republican Democrat Tutsi Annihilation Party.
laugh out loud
It is based on the assumption (justified or not) that some Libs support the cause because they see the government as taking their money to support the black/poor, or using its power to give them a leg up through abolishing segregation and, later, through mandating affirmative action, and they don’t like that. It is certainly true, at any rate, that many survivalists joined that cause for those very reasons.
As Robert Anton Wilson once wrote in commenting on the 1976 presidential race, “Politically I suppose I should have supported Ed Clark, but I’m not that kind of Libertarian; I don’t hate poor people.”