digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ron Paul: 95% of black men in DC are "criminal"

dailykos.com — Ron Paul in 1992: "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal...we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational." Well, there goes my support for Ron Paul...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Vigrant, on 12/28/2007, -59/+35I'm shocked.
    • nalicosh, on 12/28/2007, -14/+8unlikely
      • Vigrant, on 12/28/2007, -9/+15unlikely that im shocked? or that the story isn't true?
        • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -13/+16The statement is taken completely out of context, much like his statements about Lincoln that the media is focusing on to prevent Paul's message about Current Events from getting out.

          a) Lincoln did not start the Civil war to free blacks. As a matter of fact the only reason that abolition even became a part of the civil war was because he needed the black people to fight on his side to win. He started the Civil War to destroy the states right to succeed from the Union. Not that its a bad thing. I think that the country did become stronger for it, but at least get your facts straight.

          b) RP's statements about Washington DC were statistics based on the current crime trends in DC at the time. Its stupid and ignorant to jump on someone for merely citing statistics. They aren't writing the statistics nor are they forcing them to be accurate. They are merely relaying the information to a reading group.
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/28/2007, -13/+14*****. That's patently tissue-thin rationalization.
          • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7@ Wartyboskfapped

            And that is a completely open statement. If you have a problem with a comment, point out what it is. I made two statements there, both which are completely accurate. If its about Lincoln. Reviewing History is not Rationalization. Its merely reviewing and stating events that have come to pass.

            If its about the statement on DC's crime levels, then maybe you should read the newsletter. Its a very long article that was not written entirely by Ron Paul. As a matter of fact while the whole article is stating the fact that a great portion of crime in the DC area is done by Blacks, its one paragraph where it says that Ron Paul made any statements and that they were merely about the percentages of crime and how those were done by Blacks who did not carry the sames values towards community or society as everyone else does. It was a means of pointing out the problem is in their belief that their personal rights were more important than others.

            Its become disgusting how if you want any kind of negative reference and that reference happens to be towards black people you are racist when if the same statement was made towards a Caucasian or other race its just taken in stride. I'm not saying there is not racism in the world. There certainly is. But to call everything racism is just stupid. Sometimes when discussing a statistic and you need something to show the difference between two groups you are going to run into a situation where you have to use the color of their skin.
          • rolosworld, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4RP quote:
            "...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
          • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4@rolosworld -

            You should read this article:
            http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...

            It has good information that you should consider before you make blanket statements based on that newsletter. For example:
            "This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued."
          • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Better yet, read this article and consider it before you accept the spin and lies of the Ronbots: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?peop ...
        • staticneuron, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I don't think RP meant it in a racist way. And Drahkar you seemed to be up on your history so why would you think minorities would get in a tizzy over statistics and numbers thrown about? Numbers are always used as a weapon to paint entire cultures and races. I am not saying that is the intent all the time but it has been used quite often. I can point to something like "The Bell Curve" and just digg in general. People are touchy about race for some reason on digg and if you look at the most sensitive threads numbers and statistic comes out to try to paint someones race and culture as evil.

          "Its become disgusting how if you want any kind of negative reference and that reference happens to be towards black people you are racist when if the same statement was made towards a Caucasian or other race its just taken in stride"

          And would you care to elaborate on that? What negative statements have come about whites on digg?
          • Drahkar, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I can understand why some can get themselves into a twist on the numbers and statistic issues. The problem is that anything can e turned into an argument of racism if someone wants to. Even if that is the further thing fro the original person's mind.

            And I'm not stating Digg specifically. I'm just stating in America Culturally. For example, BET (Black Entertainment Television) is consider a perfectly sensible organization as is the United Negro College Fund. (Understand that I'm not saying these are bad institutions. I'm just using them as examples of the base problem in America today) These groups are sensible and OK. But if someone was to make a White Entertainment Television or a United Caucasian College Fund, they would be jumped on and shut down as being a racist group out to cause harm to minorities. I understand that racism exists in the country still. But unfortunately things like this only help perpetuate it. Until we just have 'Entertainment Network' and 'United College Fund' then there is always going to be racism in some form. Be it whites against blacks or blacks against whites.

            You can't move beyond something like this until you stop looking at it as an issue. When I was younger I didn't understand the concept of racism. If I described someone as dark brown its because that was the best way of narrowing down who I was talking about. Nothing more. It wasn't until I had someone literally attack me over it calling me a racist that I realized that there were people out there that thought the color of a person's skin matter beyond a descriptor. It was at that point that I knew what the concept of racism was. Things are slowly moving that direction and I truly believe that the only people who care about skin color are the racists (Who are becoming a minority) and the minorities themselves.
          • staticneuron, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I understand. I felt the same way. I didn't understand racism until I was older. but do you want to know something about these "Black orientated" businesses and colleges. Their livelyhood depends an wealthy white people. How insulted can you be about BET when its owned by white people? I guess that means that its subject matter is geared towards blacks ( I am black and I hate bet) but that is to easy of an assumption and it isn't as if the channel is used to spread a message of hate..... except for snitches. I imagine if ther was a WET then minorities might be afraid that it wowuld send a message of hate. But then again if a WET was owned by black people I highly doupt racist would support that channel.
        • KMye, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I'm shocked this front-paged.
    • ArkAngel06, on 12/28/2007, -22/+10Could be why he didn't want to return the $500 to that white-pride guy. Not saying that he shouldn't have kept it anyway, just more of a reason for him to keep it.

      /bury
      • popfrogs, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2"/bury"

        Why yes sir, I believe I will.
    • Godlike, on 12/28/2007, -12/+8I'm not shocked. Pretty much anyone in DC in '92 would have said that... in 1992 in DC one in thirty people was a victim of a VIOLENT crime and one in TEN was a victim of any crime at all. You guys also seem to forget that 1992 was almost 16 years ago and attitudes and ideas about crime have changed a lot since then.
      • hittnrun, on 12/28/2007, -5/+13Wait a minute, when Huckabee quotes are dugg up from 20 years ago, he doesn't get a free pass.
        • Morfildor, on 12/28/2007, -5/+7Ron gets a pass because he didn't write the newsletter. Lrn2Google.
          • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4can you prove that?
            I find the news letter and statements saying there was a ghost rider but i have not found a name.
          • Marc39, on 12/28/2007, -4/+8If you put out 'The Ron Paul Political Report' I'd suggest you actually READ each newsletter before it's printed.

            He either said it and/or wasn't smart enough to have proper control of his own newsletter. If the man can't control his own newsletter, can we assume he has the skills to lead the country?
          • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1People always make statements like this .. that if person X can't do something Y, then can s/he lead the country?
            We have only one reasonable option who will follow the Constitution, end the Iraq and mid-east fiasco, and save the economy from killing our nation. The questions are: assuming he thought or still thinks this, do those opinions supersede his strict adherence to the Constitution? Would they have an detrimental affect on his presidential activities? What kind of affect? And most importantly, how does that compare to the many shortcomings of all our other options who have already stated that they don't consider the Constitution to be as important, have unclear if any plans for getting out of the mid-east fiasco, and have absolutely no plans for fixing our economy provided they are even aware there is a problem with it, much less what the problem is.
          • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Okay, so read the article. Ron Paul has managed to keep these newsletters under wraps so far and he absolutely refuses to make them available to the public but some of the articles made it in to internet archives. Here's the archive for the article in question: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?peop ...
    • SavageBlackCat, on 12/28/2007, -10/+14So are 95% of the white men.
      • RedHerringHack, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6He is talking about the federal government. It's true.
    • theOster, on 12/28/2007, -4/+7i might be too - i'd be curious about the real numbers from '92. also, isn't DC a very small geographic area?
      • theOster, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5some stats suggest that in 92, DC was prob not a very nice place:
        http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,m ...
      • theOster, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3i just closed all my tabs, but based on some census info from teh 1990 census DC was made of 29%whites and about 66% blacks which would put RPs comment at the time into the "wtf" category. my only rationale i can think of would be that it was bad and it's human nature to exaggerate conditions.
        i'm not supporting or attacking, but the data seems to say "dont think so". oh wait, this was back in 92? who cares?
        • theOster, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2also there were 8 Tongans in 1990 :)

          i also didn't account for sex...and i see that he did specify black males...anyway, i gotta get some work done
    • linkin2, on 12/28/2007, -22/+19I love how all the RP supporters trying to justify this.
      classic desperation.
      • Morfildor, on 12/28/2007, -5/+9He didn't write it, what's there to justify. Lrn2Google.
      • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2What is there to justify? The question is whether his racial cynicism back in 1992 supersedes his strict adherence to the Constitution?
        I came across this info a couple months ago when I first learned about RP and researched it pretty well. I came to the conclusion that if he did have these opinions, they don't seem to be strongly held today, and that if they are, his record causes me to believe he would/will put the Constitution first. And even if all of this is true, it still makes him a better choice compared to the rest of our choices. Both Democrats and Republicans.
    • Subliminational, on 12/28/2007, -4/+11http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
      Ron Paul's response to the article. This is old news.
      • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2that is the best article i have seen on it even with the slight favor spin towards Paul.
        The problem then i think is what kind of a leader is he when he allows people to write as him and he has no idea what they are writing?
        I understand ghost writers and how they help but i would think he would proof read it.
        that would be the intelligent thing to do so why wasn't it done?
        • davyjames, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6Oversight? A mistake? Ron Paul isn't Jesus. Now go compare this "scandal" with the stuff the other "top tier" candidates have got up to. You know, like taking millions of pounds worth of lobbyist money from the military industrial complex, deliberatling spreading propaganda, outright lying, voting away our rights to privacy etc. etc. etc. This anti-ron paul stuff is so lame. I honestly think if American's listen to Ron Speak, check his voting record and examine what it is he believes in and STILL votes for somebody like Edwards, Clinton or Romney INSTEAD because of lame ***** like this, then they deserve everything they get as a nation.
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately I live in the same nation... and I still think I deserve more.

          -- I certainly didn't deserve these last 7 years.
    • mlvassallo, on 12/28/2007, -6/+9I'm not shocked. Dude has David Duke's support. That scares me.
      • Morfildor, on 12/28/2007, -5/+6Guilt by association is weak at best.
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2What about the other white supremacists that support him? Looks like a pattern forming to anyone not lost in denial.
      • mlvassallo, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4If you read any of his quotes you would notice it is more than just by "association".
  • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -76/+197Even the NYT has the integrity to retract these same false claims.

    DailyKos has even less integrity than the NYT...I am not surprised.
    • Hortnon, on 12/28/2007, -35/+66No, the NYT didn't retract the claims about the newsletter. They retracted the claims about that Nazi moron.

      I'm wondering, do you ever stop lying?
      • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -25/+24I haven't seen him stop yet.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -14/+38Dr. Paul said that somebody else wrote it and used his name.
        And I'm leaning toward believing him over the DailyKos or NYT, since both have issues when it comes to reporting.
        • ThinkFr33ly, on 12/28/2007, -22/+16Holy crap. THIS WAS IN HIS OWN NEWSLETTER.
        • hempydave, on 12/28/2007, -5/+12And some one else wrote an article and used free speech to give his 2 cents on the matter...grow up.
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -5/+5How do you know that someone else wrote the article? Just because that's what Ron Paul told you? If this was Huckabee or some other candidate you Ronbots would be losing your minds and screaming your heads off. Your double standards and your hypocrisy are showing.
          • vbullinger, on 12/29/2007, -1/+2I know it because it's totally against everything he believes! He's against the drug war, the most racist thing ever. Herkimer56: GO AWAY! You just troll Ron Paul posts and bash him and you don't get it at all. Get a life, loser. You will never convince anyone ever.
      • Pritchard, on 12/28/2007, -7/+26All major media dropped this issue fairly quickly once it was established that it was a Ghost Writer and that it was no where near Ron Paul's style of writing or belief system.
        • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -5/+7but doesn't the media not like Paul? If that was the case and they didn't like him since they only report on the people they like (and that is so true) why would they not run with this? seems to juicy to let it pass. I wonder since they let it pass, as they did, that they did believe him but that would show that major media isn't really against him.
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2cat: I agree.. I wonder if it doesn't have more to do with the fact that they were trying to ignore him back then.. I wonder if we will start seeing it show up more now.. or maybe in one of those mudslinging tv ads this next year if RP starts winning some states.
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -5/+4Established? Who, exactly, established that it was a ghostwriter? All we have is Ron Paul's word on the subject and his word doesn't mean much anymore. The article was published in a newsletter bearing his name and under his byline. Do you really expect us to believe that he was completely ignorant of the contents before they were published?
      • 0nslaught, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[57] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[32] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[9]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3What was the name of the ghost writer?
          When was the "ghost writer" fired?
          Why is Ron Paul refusing to make copies of the newsletters available to the press and the public?
          • arizonabay, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2All legitimate and intelligent questions posed in good faith. Now, expect:

            a. An intelligent and insightful answer
            b. To be relentlessly buried by the legion of Paulbots

            I'm not anti-Paul, but the hero worship of this guy has reached scary proportions. This article is a great example; its claim is essentially true but regardless, the article buried. If Hillary had campaign literature or a press statement that included something questionable, would digg'ers be so assuaged by assurances that it was ghost written? Or would they have the gall to point out that a politician should, you know, at least take a look at what is written in their name?
    • Frei, on 12/28/2007, -18/+29Are you going to retract that false claim?
    • colonelbuckshot, on 12/28/2007, -8/+27This "scandal" is very old news. Ron Paul did not make those remarks. Ron Paul is not racist. The worst I'd accuse him of is occasional naivete and straightforwardness, which is part of his exceptional character for a politician.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaig ...
    • Ulisses, on 12/28/2007, -14/+9http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6680 ...

      Integrity for you.
      Ronbots don't game digg.
      Ronbots don't auto-digg Paul and auto-bury dissenters, like one guy is so proudly announcing in the second page.
      Ronbots are NOT the scum of the earth.
      • davyjames, on 12/28/2007, -4/+9Why wouldn't Ron Paul supporters want an article which is a ***** SMEAR on a guy who is NOT AT ALL RACIST buried?

        You're nuts. Why do you want lies and misinformation on the front page of Digg? Why????
        • Ulisses, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7Is it not a quote from the Ron Paul newsletter?
          Has anyone taken responsability for it?
          Was anyone blamed?

          No.
          Am I to believe Ronald without any proof? I'd like to blame every wrong I've done on anonymous ghostwriters too, what a ***** cop-out!
          • 0nslaught, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[57] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[32] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[9]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4so no one was blamed you immediately blame Ron Paul for it?
            That is something only us tin foil hat wearers do -- jump to conclusions, right?
            Why dont' you call Ron Paul's office yourself and ask them? Oh wait, that would require getting off Digg and doing something politically motivated...never mind...keep telling the users of Digg why you hate Paul so much and how you have no candidate ;)
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4Ulisses:
          The double negative of the first question confuses me, but I think the answer for your questions is "yes". This is not a new subject matter and has been discussed before.
          See: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
          Whether the response is good enough for you or me, it is still there.
          I've concluded his past shows that he puts the Constitution first, and as a result, I still think he is a much better option than the others who are running for the office.
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -7/+3The response in Free Market News is meaningless. It asks us to take Ron Paul at his word that he's not a racist. Why would we take the word of any politician, much less one that has a habit of trying to bury his mistakes and blame others for what he's done?
    • dlmaher, on 12/28/2007, -6/+12Factproof hilarity. The New York Times article was not about this, it was about alleged association with Stormfront (the difference being the contribution was from Stormfront's founder, not the organization. These comment DID appear in the Ron Paul Newsletter and were not attributed to anyone else. That is undisputed fact. At the very least Paul was allowing people to publish racist rants under his name, which is questionable even under the most charitable interpretation.
      • colonelbuckshot, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6"Racist rant" is a hyperbolic overstatement. The ghostwriter referenced studies such as this 1992 one:

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ...

        and concluded that "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers". The 95% figure seems speculative, but alot of what was written is actually mainstream fare in the subject of race and criminality:

        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
      • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2Here's a few other things the "ghost writer" said in the article:
        "The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."
        "A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it."
        "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service."
        "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
        "Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"
        How can you say that the article was not a racist rant?
    • fromonesource, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6
      Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

      These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

      The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

      “This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

      This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

      Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

      Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

      An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

      "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.' ...

      "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."

      http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

      The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “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.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

      Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”
  • foontala, on 12/28/2007, -26/+88Quote from one of the comments on the site:

    "This site is in fact run by racists. It's on many lists of racist, terrorist hate groups because it is likely funded by George Soros a man who turned in his own Jewish counterparts to save his own skin."
    • notBrit, on 12/28/2007, -8/+22That's what we would call a "troll."
    • stereoradiation, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5Soros hasn't done much for the Esperanto people lately either.
    • theshrew4, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9Did Bill O'Reilly write those comments?
    • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Ummm.. which "site"? Are you calling Kevin Rose a racist?
      • blackjack75, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Oh come on, get a clue! He's obviously talking about Ramzi from thebroken!

        (Do you have a firewall that prevents access to the rest of the internet?)
  • nobullshit, on 12/28/2007, -29/+8he had actually meant to say Nigeria, not DC. he fell for the 419
  • newbee70, on 12/28/2007, -47/+144What would you expect from the doilykos. Just the same old lame attacks with no proof, and no ethics. Keep it up Doilykos.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 12/28/2007, -31/+25No proof? They freakin quoted him. What the hell is wrong with you?
      • Arkavus, on 12/28/2007, -12/+15Yes because everything written on the internet is exactly as what the person said, if they've said anything at all.
        • Frei, on 12/28/2007, -9/+6Yeah daily kos was around in 1992, RTFA.
      • redxxx, on 12/28/2007, -16/+10but... they took his hate speech out of context. It isn't fair to count things he said when he didn't know he'd run for president.
        • flogistan, on 12/28/2007, -6/+7He didn't say it.
        • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3what it is, i think, a side effect of running for the biggest job in the US. everything you do will be looked at over and over.
          it cant be helped as media will probe to report on something.
      • haydentech, on 12/28/2007, -4/+7"I hate black people." - ThinkFr33ly, 12-28-2007
    • XTCinOvaltine, on 12/28/2007, -6/+5I thought it was the dAily kos, doily kos sounds like politics for 80 year old women who like knitting.
    • davyjames, on 12/28/2007, -0/+8WTF? They didn't quote him because he didn't write it and this has been debunked like TEN YEARS AGO!!! They are trying to make the man look bad because that's all that stupid website does.
  • Terri84, on 12/28/2007, -33/+13Lets see if this gets on the front page.
    • nalicosh, on 12/28/2007, -10/+6surely, you jest
    • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -27/+42The Ron Paul Bury Brigade will be all over this. The one thing that pisses them off more than anything is someone actually quoting what Ron Paul has said or written. They would prefer that you not know what he's really thinking.
      • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -13/+10Why would this piss anyone off, he's quoting numbers from the police departments, if black men in DC don't like what those numbers say then they need to try not being part of the numbers.
        By the way, it's on he front page.
        • sotloo, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Sigh…. you know the know-it-all contingent on Digg never fails to disappoint. Too bad so many of you young people both black and white don’t know history well enough to avoid repeating it. Whites think blacks need to get over “it” while blacks keep thinking whites will some day start thinking of them as equals and stop being “racist”. Neither group knows or bothers to know anything about the other because each believes there is not much worth knowing, all you need is quote or misquote statistics and or share anecdotal stories of what who did what to whom when how and how often. Time it seems changes nothing people don’t become wiser because the ranks of the uninformed are constantly being replenished with each generation.
          • noahhoward, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3Honestly not sure what you are going on about, if the DC police have arrested 95% of the black male population then 95% of the black male population are criminal. If you get upset about it, white or black, you need to get over it, it is not racist to point out facts.
      • georgemason01, on 12/28/2007, -10/+9How many dupe accounts did you make to get your comments dugg up?
        • chaosium, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Your "message" is repulsive enough to draw a completely different crowd out of apathy.
      • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4they've already mobilized:
        http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6680 ...
  • InRussetShadows, on 12/28/2007, -35/+29I'm very curious. Did Ron Paul say this or is Dkos lying? I imagine having to choose one or the other will cause a lot of liberal heads to explode. Take cover!
    • Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -18/+48I don't care if he said it. It's not really incriminating to me. It doesn't mean he is racist. I have an extended family of around 120 people, 90% of which is black. And guess what. They say the exact same things.
    • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -43/+44He said it and now he's doing all he can to cover it up. His loyal minions, the Ronbots, are doing everything they can to help him keep his racist views hidden.
      • Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -7/+35I definitely do not think it should be covered up, but brought out, with him right there to answer for it.
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -28/+28I agree but that's never going to happen. Ron Paul simply refuses to make any kind of cogent statement on this issue and when confronted he makes every possible attempt to shift the blame to a person or persons unknown. So much for Ron Paul's supposed integrity.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -19/+24Yeah, and you're just a ***** Estasblishment Slander Bot who doesn't know anything except the pathetic Autopilot your life is set on.

            All the other candidates go slander-free, while Ron has to put up with constant ***** that has jack ***** to do with his governmental message. They can't defeat his message, so they distract, misdirect and slander.

            And you're their pawn.
          • mugsoh, on 12/28/2007, -10/+4You don't think his general attitude to 15% of the population is significant? It may not be what you want to hear about your candidate, but it doesn't make it a lie or irrelevant.
          • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2tilon,
            dont be a troll. come on.
            Honestly i think it would help if he would answer the question quickly and get it over with.
            BUT i wouldnt touch it ether right now since it is not being ran by the major media. IF they pick it up then he needs to issue a statement and talk about it. Otherwise its just another story like the pro paul ones.
          • davyjames, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4It's not as if Ron Paul avoids answering these questions. Ron Paul is the most honest politician I've ever seen. He always answers any question up front and honestly. Really. I haven't seen the newsletter brought up on tv in this campaign but I saw him answer the criticism in a print interview a while back and he explained as he always has, quite honestly, that he DID NOT write the article but takes full responsibility that it came out under his name. I don't know his private views but I would imagine he would have been upset that it was, because many of his heroes are black and he considers racism IMMORAL and has said so... Ron Paul has suggested one of his econmic heroes as part of his staff if he were president and the dude is black, I've heard him say one of his biggest political heroes was rosa parks in the cnn interview and I have seen many other more obsqure videos of ron paul intereacting with fans after rallys. Many of them are black, asian, mexican etc. etc. and Ron Paul talks to them and takes photos of them exactly the same, you can see clearly in his eyes he is NOT a racist, he is a man of the people. It's sad to see people think this way of him :( Look at him talking at that inner city debate with a majority black audience, he is the only candidate brave enough to explain how the war on drugs is one way that black and inner city people are getting a raw deal and the unfairness of what is happening. Do you see many other candidates advocating an end to the war on drugs!?!?!? It's infuriating that people could seriously think RP is a racist.
      • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2all he can do to cover it up? obviously not trying that hard. ;]
        I read about this months ago and it gets mentioned in the comments in a lot of RP posts. I'd also bet money that this isn't the first time it has showed up on digg.
    • thechr0nic, on 12/28/2007, -12/+39this has been thourougly debunked, time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

      but this is the ONLY dirt anyone can seem to find on paul.. a newsletter written by someone other than paul like 20 years ago.

      but since it is the only dirt anyone can seem to find, this has been repeated ad naseum
      • dood, on 12/28/2007, -12/+18Please, post the proof of the debunking. Set us straight on this Paul guy.
        • thechr0nic, on 12/28/2007, -4/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaig ...
          http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...

          There are several digg submissions covering this also.

          it doesnt matter, because even though he didnt write the article in the newsletter, or condone it, he has taken moral responsibility for this being published under his name. This ancient newsletter dirt is the only thing anyone can find on paul, and even though it has been dis-avowed by paul and debunked, it will keep returning.

          I fully expect this to be posted again, because its all they have.. he has a rock solid voting record for supporting individual liberty for all americans regardless of race. I have never seen this apparent racism in the hundreds of speaches and videos and voting record that I have scoured through.. but this will still not be enough to finally put this controversy to rest - evidently. /shrug
          • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1i dont know if he has taken real responsibility for it.
            If he didnt say it then he needs to prove that he hasnt. It would not be fair for him to suffer if he did not say it.
          • dood, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3Thank you. That he did not identify the actual writer is disappointing. There's no way to corroborate the statement that someone else wrote it.
          • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Well, catfish, when you're an honorable person and you put your name on something like that you tend to want to take responsibility for it regardless. It was his mistake to allow his name to be put on the thing when he didn't have the time to read everything first before printing, much less write it all. A little old fashioned to some, but that is the way people like that are.
          • catfish182, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Gandhii,
            true but there has to be something unresolved from it or there would be a comment or a soundbyte that pro paul people could play or show that would put the nail in this and end it.
            OR
            this isnt really a big deal. there isn't major news outlets covering it so they must not view it as something of worth.
        • TubaTechno, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7Citing a Wiki article, which ANYONE can edit isn't really debunking anything. And that other page didn't pull up for me. So I found another one:
          http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ... (which was probably the same as yours but yours was cut off some how)

          It's weird that you have so many Ron Paul supporters having two different defending points. First to say that Ron actually did say those words but was just citing statistics:
          http://books.google.com/books?id=selr6BDsMNAC&pg=P ...

          But then others turn around and say he didn't say those words. Which is it? Should we believe the main stream media in which you think is out to get Ron Paul? Or should be put our trust in user generated media and other outlets such as "FMNN" website who is obviously biased towards Ron Paul and can't give an objective conclusion about him?
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Tuba: Good question.
          Can't trust anyone completely huh? ;]
          Kinda have to look at all of it and figure out what makes the most since. And then decide whether it has any bearing on why you do or do not support RP.
          My conclusion what that his record of sticking to the constitution supersedes any racist thoughts he may or may not have, and if the worse was true he'd still be a far better choice than any of the others based on my priorities of the rule of law, iraq, and the economy. But, that is just me. Hope you come up with a conclusion that you're comfortable with.
      • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -9/+12care to "debunk" these statements?
        "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q"
        "evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
        "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."
        • godofgodlygods, on 12/28/2007, -4/+8Those are his beliefs. However, he believes it is not the job of the Federal government to determine those things. He believes those things are up to the states. That is why he is so great.
        • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1separation of church and state is not the job of the federal government? upholding the constitution is not the job of the federal government?
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Of course those are the jobs of the federal government. I'm not seeing where RP is suggesting these opinions of his should be legislated onto others. Thank you for your forthcoming clarification.
        • ringelman5, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1"separation of church and state is not the job of the federal government?"
          ERROR. 1st Amendment says ZERO about 'separation'.

          "upholding the constitution is not the job of the federal government?"
          Erroneous. Upholding the constitution is the job and duty of ALL who have taken an oath to protect and defend it.
      • panickedthumb, on 12/28/2007, -7/+5pintomp3: And this is why Ron Paul scares me! I was trying to find that quote, but you found it for me
        • gandhii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2But do these personal opinions, coming from a man who has a long tradition of putting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights first, scare you more than the beliefs and opinions of all the other candidates who do not believe the Constitution should be adhered to as strictly?
    • MindStalker, on 12/28/2007, -3/+16This has been discussed over and over, but I'll take a shot at it again. A short article about this at http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ... you can do a lot of googling for information on both sides of this issue, but the short and skinny is.
      In the early 90s a newsletter that Ron Paul owns published several racist statements.
      1. Ron Paul claims a staffer wrote this and that he didn't know about it till after it was published, but he "takes moral responsibility for its publication".
      2. Over hundreds of these publications, and thousands of statements made by Ron Paul this was the only thing that had any racism (unless if you count his statement that the civil war was unnecessary as racist :) and it appeared in this one edition of his newsletter in excess. Defiantly not his style.
      In short Ron Paul made the mistake of letting bad things be published in his name, and not immediately trying to deny or stop it
      • hempydave, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2It wasn't that bad , like black comedians say ***** steal your ***** so yeah most black in DC are criminals , they sure the hell are not smart enough to embezzle that whiteys deal.
    • colonelbuckshot, on 12/28/2007, -4/+7Ron Paul DID NOT make that remark. Pathetic smear attempt. This old story is covered here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaig ...
    • InRussetShadows, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Ok, thank you for the information. I've followed the links they seem to be reasonable and rational. I don't support Ron Paul because of his terrorism/Islam blind spot, but I didn't think that he was a racist. I do agree that saying what was in the newsletter doesn't necessarily make him a racist, either.
  • mediaspree, on 12/28/2007, -27/+156 According to Paul. every individual should receive equal rights. Not based on your skin color or religion. the blacks have been segregated agaisnt for so long that now prejudice exists. Ron Paul seek to eliminate prejudice by advocating indivdual rights intead of group rights.
    • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -27/+18So what happens when one group (like white "nationalists") organizes with the specific intent of spreading hate towards another group? How would Ron Paul deal with that within his philosophy (besides accepting their money)?

      How would his "seeking" evidence itself? Because "seeking to eliminate prejudice" isn't exactly a quantifiable agenda, and "advocating individual rights instead of group rights" doesn't exactly help a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck driven by one of Don Black's friends.

      Can you fill us in on how Ron Paul's open heart will evidence itself during his term as President?
      • sphigel, on 12/28/2007, -7/+14"So what happens when one group (like white "nationalists") organizes with the specific intent of spreading hate towards another group?"
        Unless they hurt or intimidate someone they haven't done anything illegal. I do believe we still have freedom of speech.

        ""advocating individual rights instead of group rights" doesn't exactly help a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck driven by one of Don Black's friends."
        I'm confused, what policy or law would you enact that would help a black man being drug behind a pickup?
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -7/+5I call it the 12-Gauge Act.
        • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2---- "I'm confused, what policy or law would you enact that would help a black man being drug behind a pickup?" ----

          You're confusion is my confusion. I'm trying to get to the bottom of mediaspree's manifesto on what Ron Paul believes. I couldn't figure out how anything he said regarding individual rights or group rights could be applied to the issue at hand.

          But that happens a lot with "what Ron Paul believes" manifestos. If you care to enlighten me, feel free.
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2humpty, how is imposing more jail time on a charge going to prevent people from doing it and help the people that would be victimized?
            You think the criminal is going to say "hmmm I might get 5 extra years tacked on to my 15 if I do this....maybe I shouldn't"?
          • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2@card51short:

            Huh?
      • Psi57, on 12/28/2007, -3/+12Crimes are crimes no matter who the perpetrators and victims are. Hate crime laws only serve to say that victims of a certain race deserve greater attention than others.

        By the freedom of speech, everyone has the right to express whatever they want. If this freedom cannot be maintained at the extremes (hate speech) then how do you expect it to be enforced for anything else (political descent)? I would point you to the case a long time back when a primarily Jewish town wanted to limit white supremacists from marching through the middle of their town. A Jewish lawyer took up the hate group's case and won.
        • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2---- "Crimes are crimes no matter who the perpetrators and victims are. Hate crime laws only serve to say that victims of a certain race deserve greater attention than others." ----

          Hate crimes recognize that *perpetrators* of certain crimes deserve greater attention than others. The definition of a special class of hate crimes recognizes that certain crimes are committed with the intent of sending a message to a particular class of people.

          If a white man drags a black man behind his pickup truck because the black man owed him money, then it is a standard crime. If he drags him behind his pickup because he "doesn't want his kind coming around here any more," the law recognizes it as a personal crime and a hate crime -- a form of terrorism against an entire class of people. This is as it should be.

          I believe in freedom of speech, even for hate groups, and never said otherwise.
          • Psi57, on 12/30/2007, -1/+2Yes, but how do you distinguish between the two especially when the perpetrator and victim say two different things?
        • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2"The definition of a special class of hate crimes recognizes that certain crimes are committed with the intent of sending a message to a particular class of people."

          So? Why should they be punished on the intention of their crimes? They should be judged on the crime only and not why they did it. If someone did it for money should it be called a "currency crime" and more jail time be given?
          What about a serial rapist...is it a hate crime against women?
          Every crime involving violence is a hate crime...designating people with a certain color of skin as a higher crime penalty targets a certain racial group.
          Paul doesn't want to target anyone by something as silly as the color of their skin, whether it be for good or bad.

          If you are against his belief, then that's fine...but don't come here telling us we're evil because we agree with him.

          Anyways, how are you supposed to know the intentions of why someone beat someone? They could just make something else up or say it was a random crime. It's entirely unprovable without an admission or if he was wearing a Klan robe.
        • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2All our sentencing is based on the formation of intent by the criminal because sentencing is, in part, an attempt to influence the formation of intent on the part of future criminals.

          In this case, it has to do with the number of intended victims there are of a crime. If I walk into a mall and attempt to shoot someone who owed me money and fail, I will receive a particular sentence. If I walk into a mall wrapped in explosive trying to kill as many people as possible and fail, I will receive a much more severe sentence based solely on my intent.

          If a white man drags a black man behind a pickup truck because he owes him money, he will receive a particular sentence because his intent was to injure a single victim. If he drags a black man behind his pickup truck to send a message to the entire black community, then his intent was multiple victims, and the sentence should be more severe.

          Hate crime legislation was implemented when we recognized that there was a very real form of domestic terrorism going on against specific groups in this country. If the haters didn't want them treated differently, then they should have exercised a little more free speech and a little less beating and killing.
      • MindStalker, on 12/28/2007, -3/+12Well you have to look at the history of Racism in this country. Just about every immigrant group that has arrived in this country has received extreme racism at one time or another. There are hate groups for Jews, Hispanics, Irish, you name it. Blacks got the exceptional short end of the stick for several reasons, slavery and the resentment over the civil war are a lot of this. The hate groups will never be gone, but the average Joe racism will only disappear once blacks reach economic equality. As Ron Paul has stated on most issues "Its the economy stupid" (ok he doesn't say the word stupid :)

        How to achieve this I don't know, but I do know the current federal attempts at achieving this are backfiring and causing resentment and negative achievement.
        • FutureCowboys, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2that's the propaganda many believe but it's bogus just the same. denial of racism's existence is part of the problem here not the solution.
      • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1So if ron paul drafted the "Give Black People $1,000 Act" which gives every black person in America $1,000 for no reason, would I be a racist to be against it?
        Why should we categorize any person by the racial group he or she belongs to? That's racism...treating a racial group in a different way then you would treat others.
    • Frei, on 12/28/2007, -18/+7Which is political spin at best and a complete divorce from reality at worst. History shows that his ideas on this aren't well grounded.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -3/+6Which history have you been reading?
        • Frei, on 12/28/2007, -5/+5You know you convinced me, there was never any institutional racism in the US. The states handled everything fairly and perfect. His idea of "group rights" is exactly what the Klan and Neo Nazi groups preach to whites to make themselves feel persecuted by civil rights laws. Do some ***** research. Paul isn't a big fan of the 14th amendment.

    • FutureCowboys, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4denial that racism exists does not equal nonracism--far from it. These are scary times. the paul bandwagon continues with people buying a flawed bill of goods. Wake up.
    • Morfildor, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3Ron Paul on Racism:

      A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

      The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

      Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

      It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

      Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

      The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

      In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

      - Ron Paul
      • FutureCowboys, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1That doublethink paul tract would make Orwell's 1984 antagonists so proud.
    • sonofthor, on 12/29/2007, -0/+3Except for gays. He doesn't believe in equal rights for me.
      • vbullinger, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1Yes, he does. He's even said he's sort of pro gay marriage, not just civil unions (a Jim Crow idea if I've ever heard one). I.e. because the government should not be able to say who can and can't get married. Look it up. So, he's against any legislation (federal and local) that says who can and can't get married. He (rightly) thinks it should be a religious institution and that's it. So, if your church says "yes, you can get married," then you can get married - even if you're gay.

        I'm completely for gay rights and I firmly believe that Ron Paul is your best bet for equality. Trust me on that.
      • chaosium, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3He's pro states passing anti-sodomy laws, vbullinger.
  • katie212, on 12/28/2007, -43/+118Just another blatant smear attempt...Shows Ron Paul has them(dems and neorepubs) scared of losing their empire! I love it, as I am a constituent of Ron Paul for over 15 yrs and believe me when I say that there isn't a racist bone in this freedom loving mans body. Keep up the momentum americans for Ron Paul in 2008!
    • betweenthebars, on 12/28/2007, -14/+7If it were so blantant, I really doubt that it wouldn't have made it to the front page.

      And what empire? The last I checked, Bush wasn't so much a democrat... but correct me if 'm wrong.
      • Meatetarian, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3Fiscally, at the very least, he's much more in line with the Democrats, despite the conservative values he espouses come election time.
        Bush is not a conservative -- at least in the traditional sense of the word.
      • katie212, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6very blatant to many, just completely a farse and smear job . What empire do you think ? hmmm? Lets see now, repubs and dems love to spend our taxpayers money...dems give bushco everything they ask for to continue this "war on terror" and the "war on the taxpaying citizens" ...so yes, I most certainly think these 2 parties have more in common than you obviously wish to comprehend. Empire.
      • vbullinger, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1Bush is no Republican. He is a distorted form of evil liberal known as a Neocon, or Trotskyite or Straussian. Watch this speech to know what I'm talking about: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4156174553 ...
    • EarlOfLade, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2The last thing that scares me, is Ron Paul, a comic book character from Texas without any chances at all in the upcoming elections. What is there to be afraid of?
    • TubaTechno, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Bush isn't much of a republican either...
  • evolutioninside, on 12/28/2007, -38/+113dailykos.com = Buried
  • nalicosh, on 12/28/2007, -51/+177Duplicate story? check.
    Inaccurate? check.
    Lame? check.
    Spam? check.
    • jcm267, on 12/28/2007, -58/+42Duplicate Story? This coming from a Ronbot?
      Inaccurate? How?
      Lame? I don't think so.
      Spam? Not really.
      • Vigrant, on 12/28/2007, -28/+16Owned? Yes
      • trippinlikegod, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6Epic fail jcm... Did you bother reading any of the comments before you posted what you thought was a very clever comeback?
    • ringelman5, on 12/28/2007, -16/+33buried? check
    • gn0stik, on 12/28/2007, -11/+5front page? check
    • StealthMonkey, on 12/28/2007, -10/+6I love how the RPers are sending in the bury army to take this down. I can't wait till he drops out so we can all stop hearing about him. Actually, he isn't that bad, but his supporters... good God.
      • Morfildor, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6Probably because he didn't write the newsletter and that it's a blatant lie? What if Obama is a terrorist got dugg to the top wouldn't you be slightly pissed too?
  • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -45/+66KOS is owned by George Soros.

    Defender of terrorists.

    "the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who has defended alleged terrorists in court and was sentenced to 2⅓ years in prison for "providing material support for a terrorist conspiracy" via a press conference for a client." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

    This Soros son-of-a-bitch is what you'll find under "Marxist" in the dictionary.
    • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -34/+23If he's really a defender of terrorists then he should love Ron Paul. After all, Ron Paul as President would do absolutely nothing about international terrorism and would pull all American troops home and refuse to help our friends and allies around the world. That sounds like something the terrorists would appreciate.
      • thechr0nic, on 12/28/2007, -5/+7good to see you back on ron paul threads Herk.. I was beginning to miss you.
      • 15charmaxwtf, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4That is precisely what the terrorists don't want.
        http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide- ...
      • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -1/+10How is that a bad thing? As much as I'd love for the US to be able to solve the worlds problems that isn't exactly working and should certainly not be a priority.
      • blackjack75, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2How is pulling the troops helping terrorism? It will basically destroy one of their biggest motives.
    • lpmiller, on 12/28/2007, -6/+13there is no such thing as a rich Marxist. You need a better dictionary.
    • lajaw, on 12/28/2007, -7/+5He's not actually a "marxist", he more of an outright communist. You know the type that get in power to make everyone poor yet keep all they have and your stuff too? NO, he doesn't want communal marxism, but he wants to be in charge. And hey Herky boy. You leftist neo-cons are sooooooo predictable. Get out the Constitution and read it please. Our allies can well take care of themselves. Where does the Constitution give authority to be the police of the world? You leftists are sickening.
      • kazamx, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Huh? I think you get your definition of communist and marxist from Fox News mate. You need to go out and learn what these things really are before you go off on one making yourself look daft.
        • lajaw, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Actually, I don't even own a TV there leftist slug. I've read the book by Marx. Have you? The communists are not true Marxist. Marxists are crazy idealists people, communists are thugs. Neither Marxism nor communism can work because of the ability of the leaders to abuse power with no oversight.
    • Electric_Sheep, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9Alleged terrorists. Exactly.

      We shouldn't let alleged terrorists defend themselves can we? I mean, they must be guilty! We can't let them try and prove their innocence! How many people at Guantanamo Bay have been released 3 or 4 years later after being found innocent?
      • godofgodlygods, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3After all, there aren't tons of innocent Americans on the list of people associated with terrorists who aren't allowed to fly... y'know?

        heh
    • justintsmith, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Ad hominems for all!
    • h0zae, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Soros - who also gave $5million to MoveON?
  • stealthc, on 12/28/2007, -30/+103The Moon is not made of cheese, Santa Claus is not an actual person, the Easter Bunny is not real, and Ron Paul is not a racist. If you knew ANYTHING about his typical manner of speaking, his approach to racism, to liberty, and his opinions on racists, the very idea should be alien. I really wish these bigoted crackpots would stop posting lies. This was debunked many months ago, and discovered by RP supporters if I remember correctly. They did their due diligence, found out the truth, and moved on. I honestly do not have enough willpower to obsessively digg this stuff down to match the hatred the Kossacks have that drives them to keep on submitting it.
    • notBrit, on 12/28/2007, -12/+3Thank you for at least being intellectually honest enough to a) admit that you don't care about blatantly racist comments from a Presidential candidate and that b) you will vote for the man regardless of the facts. At least you admit it, unlike 95% of the other Paul supporters who commented here.
      • Asure, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5what is your agenda???
        he is not a racist.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1facts == lies.

        Double plus good!
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 12/28/2007, -9/+2If he is not a racist, why did he say such an incredibly racist thing?

      Also, he wasn't "speaking". This was written BY HIM in his OWN NEWSLETTER.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1He didn't write it. The man that did write it was fired.
  • daGUY, on 12/28/2007, -22/+48Could someone who's claiming this is inaccurate show me any kind of proof? I (previously) had nothing against Ron Paul - I'm not a conservative by any stretch, but I thought he was the best candidate for President by far out of anyone else. I'd like to believe that this ISN'T true because I liked Paul so much otherwise.
    I hadn't previously heard of this before, and I haven't seen anything debunking it. If there's something out there that does so please direct me to it.
    • celerityfm, on 12/28/2007, -13/+23Sure: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
      • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -25/+24FTA: " Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them."
        So Ron Paul, a former US Congressman at the time, allowed an openly racist news letter to be published under his name with absolutely no idea what was being printed. Right. Either Ron Paul and the people that printed the newsletters are lying or Ron Paul is the most incompetent administrator on the face of the Earth. Which one is it, Ronbots?
        • theblueprint, on 12/28/2007, -23/+22To paraphrase DeNiro in "Casino"

          Either (a) he's incompetent, or (b) he was in on it. Both are unacceptable for someone wishing to be President.
          • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -7/+7Tell that to Bush
          • Hortnon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+14What's that got to do with this discussion?
          • StarlessKnight, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2Hortnon: Because, apparently, even if Ron Paul were either (a) incompetent, or (b) in on it, it's obviously not enough to make him unpresidential if our sitting President, right now, is either (a) incompetent, or (b) in on it. "It" could be any number of topics, which is a discussion not relevent to this particular thread.
          • TubaTechno, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3Yet there are plenty of people that will argue that our current president is not qualified to be president and "stole" the election.... Are you honestly saying that it's ok for the next president to be incompetent just because the current president is?
        • kickinazz, on 12/28/2007, -5/+4Anyone who says "ronbots" is getting buried. Take that immature talk elsewhere...
        • kazamx, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7So let me get this right. In over 15 years in politics their is one newsletter that makes Ron Paul out to be a racist. thier is no other evedence, and none of Dr Pauls actions over all that time give any indication of him being a racist. But because one newsletter written by someone else gives that indication, then he is the worst administrator ever?

          Just one small example. GWB saying their were WMD in Iraq? isn't that a bit bigger?
      • mugsoh, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Judging by the Polls archive, this site is overwhelmingly viewed by Ron Paul supporters, so it may be catering to its audience
    • Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -14/+7It doesn't really need debunking in my opinion, but I know that others don't want to hear that rebuttal. It's insufficient evidence. Read the passage slowly and picture a black man saying it to a large crowd of blacks, trying to inspire change in his people. Inspire a drive to improve their lives by improving themselves and working hard at goals in life as opposed to taking handouts.
      • Humptydank, on 12/28/2007, -7/+13I tried that, and the "large crowd of blacks" kept getting distracted by the fact that a Presidential candidate can still raise $12 million when he has a seemingly nonstop series of "unfortunate misunderstandings" regarding speaking engagements, lunches, photographs, campaign donations, and his own newsletter, all pointing in a single direction -- white supremacism and bigotry.

        I told them that he was just an open guy, and that he couldn't get an FBI workup on everybody he shook hands with, but the "large crowd of blacks" asked me if he was so open, where are the embarrassing pictures with Louis Farrakhan, and why were there no rumors of secret lunches with the Black Radical Congress?

        Then somebody started reading his legislative and voting record over a loudspeaker and the crowd started moving towards me, so I got out of there.

        If you don't mind, I'm not going to try to talk about Ron Paul to any "large crowds of blacks" anymore. It's kind of dangerous, even in my head.
        • mattsadd, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2I believe what Spectre74 intended for you to imagine was a black man saying to his people, "Guys, we are the cause of too much crime and a source of illiteracy in the US. Look at the numbers. Yes, the white man put us here. Yes, our history is unfair. But we cannot expect to be rewarded or compensated for that. The white people that founded this country asserted unto the British their autonomy, and now we must do the same. That is how great cultures of the world rise, when they come together for their common good. We inflict the most crime upon our own race. We need to end our black-on-black crime for real, get black men to start raising their kids with the mother, and find healthier ways of dealing with disagreements amongst ourselves that don't involve drugs, gangs and violence."
          I believe that Ron Paul's free market attitude, his plan to greatly reduce taxes, and his intention to remove racist, archaic drug laws, offers blacks in this country their greatest shot at equality. Are they going to have to step up? You bet. We expect the same of the Iraqi people without being called racist, so why a culture within our own borders can't be told the same is baffling to me.
          • Spectre74, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1My rant is the perfect example of anger distorting my ability to debate properly. However, anger accomplishes some things, like your comment. I appreciate it.
        • Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Well sorry to tell u dude, but this black, and all of his extended family, support him. I'm going to put a passage here that a placed on another thread in a second. Read it.
        • Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Your fear and assumption that blacks are stupid makes you ignorant:

          I cannot prove this point on a blog, forum, blah blah blah. Let me say this. My extended family is about 120 people, 90% blacks. We don't want handouts. We don't want violence. We don't want division or "economic segregation" (i just made that up okay) between us and everyone else. We want true equality, everyone gets a fair chance. it ain't the 40's, 50's or 60's.
          People who get this so called "help" get frickin lazy and lose that spark inside. They see everyone else around them getting this free ride, and nice cars and grills on their car or their mouth pick one, and think that's how life should be.
          All these damn social services do is give them a comfort zone to get stuck in dude. Few break out of it.
          This also enables those who do criminal activity to take advantage of the illegal world, and still get "help". We don't like working all day and striving to get an education and then come home to see the rich drug dealer getting food stamps and a welfare check. Then if he happens to be a friend or family and is actually contributing this money to good causes(his family-getting education, etc). When that same government catches his ass, the lock him up for life, but let the white guy next door who got caught with a pound of excstasy pills get 2 years.
          We are frustrated, and our own people have fallen pray to this so called "help" and "drug war". ***** DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!! Now, if you need a better example. Get reborn as a black male or female, grow up in a struggling neighborhood, and try to make it with good values. Get an education(as a black man), then look back at the life of those you grew up with and ask yourself-----why are things this way and why haven't things changed? But, you can't be reborn, or you can't understand my reasoning. I know it's tough to understand, and I'm not really qualified to explain it. But I know what the hell I've experienced and seen.
          Protection against discrimination is good, but not so much anymore. It is abused. It isn't as necessary. It forces us to recognize our insignificant differences. Look, I'm not RP, but I know he's a white guy who understands how to solve black issues more than any other candidate. Go ahead and call him racist, while he sucks up all the black votes in the south.(rant)
    • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -19/+36Ron Paul didn't write the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter. This has been debunked. Check your sources.
      If it had been him that actually said those statements. It would be all over mainstream media.
      • FyreGoddess, on 12/28/2007, -11/+34Saying "this has been debunked" is meaningless without citations. Saying "check your sources" to someone who specifically asked for sources and supports the same candidate you do, essentially indicates that you have no actual, credible sources to cite.
        • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -11/+6You're right - to successfully debunk this claim, I need to view a credible source of the accusation. Would you mind finding me a photo copy of the unaltered newsletter so I can judge for myself? All I can seem to find is unverified text from non credible sources. I can't find anything from a mainstream source either.
          • Hortnon, on 12/28/2007, -11/+15The fact that Paul apologized for it and blamed someone else should be proof enough that it exists.

            Unless Paul was lying?
          • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -10/+9It would help if Ron Paul would make these newsletters available to the press and the public but so far he has refused to do so. Why? What's he hiding?
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2It's supposed to be available online. Dig around for it if you wish.
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2"Unless Paul was lying?"

            The plot thickens.
            *hands you a tin foil hat*
            Godspeed, Horty!!!
      • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -22/+31"Ron Paul didn't write the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter."
        Sure he didn't. Read that sentence back to yourself a few times until it sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to anyone with a shred of integrity. If he didn't write it then who did? Ron Paul won't identify the writer but the Ronbots have claimed that it was Lew Rockwell. If so, then why is Lew Rockwell still working for Ron Paul? Lou Rockwell, not to be confused with George Lincoln Rockwell, probably, is still one of Paul's biggest on-line cheerleaders. If he had actually done that much damage to Ron Paul's reputation then why is Paul still openly associating with him? Well, it may be because Ron Paul has absolutely no compunction against rubbing elbows with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis.
        So this brings us to the big question, if Ron Paul didn't write those comments and if he didn't endorse them then why has he refused to make copies of the newsletters available to the press? What's he hiding?
        • brad3378, on 12/28/2007, -10/+4So after 15 years nobody has placed a single image of this newsletter on the Internet and now you're back to the guilt by association tactic? Give me a credible source or give me a break!
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -5/+7http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?peop ...
          • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1And what exactly is that supposed to be? I don't see Ron Paul's name in there anywhere and I hardly class an online newsgroup as a reliable source.
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2That's supposed to be the article that was written.
            I've been reading Dr. Paul's articles and books for several years now, and I have to agree with his assessment that it's not his writing style.
          • TubaTechno, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3So the fact that Ron Paul acknowledges the article isn't proof at all? You're a moron.
          • card51short, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3so herky you think ron paul is dumb enough to write a racist newsletter when he is supposed to be a closet racist? If his goal is to bring back slavery, like you said, why would he be writing racist newsletters? Why hasn't any mainstream news outlets reported on this when they are always looking for dirt to dig up?
            Why is it that all that neo nazi stuff yall were talking about last week was totally false?
          • noahhoward, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1I didn't really see anything racist about the article at all.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3He does not 'rub elbows,' as you say, with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. He just takes their money. If you haven't noticed, his rationale for accepting is 'if they're stupid enough to give to somebody who is for racial equality under the law, why should I give their money back?'
          And I wholeheartedly agree. Even if he ends up recieving money from Vladimir Putin (an impossibility, but it's a hypothetical) or Ariel Sharon I wouldn't have a problem with him keeping it. Why should anybody else?
    • Enoughie, on 12/28/2007, -8/+11I would like to see some proof to the contrary as well (as someone who supports RP on many issues).
      But I would also like to see some CREDIBLE sources for the claims themselves. These supposed quotes sound nothing like Ron Paul or his libertarian philosophy.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -12/+16It's going to be tough because Ron Paul has refused to make copies of the news letters available to the press. If he didn't make racist statements in those news letters he could clear the whole thing up by releasing them along with the name of the alleged ghost writer.
        • Enoughie, on 12/28/2007, -11/+7Oh please. What is this 1857? So am I just to believe dailykos?
          Now, I'm not so familiar with that site, but from the past 3 articles I read there it sounds like a site with an Enquirer-like sensationalism and a socialist agenda.
          Anyone who received that newsletter can scan and upload it for the world to see. In this case "pic or it didn't happen."
        • Herkimer56, on 12/28/2007, -14/+17This story pre-dates the article in Dailykos. In fact, it's been floating around for months now. You may not like it but he did publish a survivalist newsletter in which he made openly racist comments. The Ronbots have tried every possible way they can think of to spin this away but it's not happening. If Ron Paul truly has nothing to hide then he should release these newsletters to the press immediately.
          • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1Openly racist or based on statistics that you don't like?
        • billmccartney, on 12/28/2007, -5/+6Herkimer Just spams Ron Paul threads -- he hates Ron Paul

          Debunked here: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...
    • Astlin, on 12/28/2007, -10/+51http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaig ...
      "In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own," but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent.""
      • onetimer, on 12/28/2007, -18/+23That's it? Were just supposed to take his word for it, end of story? If he's telling the truth, why won't he just release the newsletters and/or the identity of the fired "ghost writer"? Both would clear up his name and collaborate his story.

        Tell me, if something like this broke out in one of Huckabee's newsletters, would you accept his word for it like you are with paul?
        • indyattic, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5It wouldn't matter. I don't like Huckabee, and the people who wave this tripe proudly don't like Ron Paul. Through Congressman Paul's medical practice's charity work alone, he has done more good in the world than any Marxist members of the Kos Klan will ever achieve. That's good enough for me.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4Of course, Huckabee doesn't have the kind of record Dr. Paul has, so no.
          And if you haven't noticed, somthing like this has happened to Huckabee. Something about a pardoned rapist....
      • scottknick, on 12/28/2007, -11/+10So Ron Paul turned his column in his own newsletter over to a rabid racist ghostwriter who did not share his views? And who apparently wrote this drivel on more than one occasion, under Paul's byline, while Paul did nothing? Wow, I'm so glad this story has been debunked.
      • dood, on 12/28/2007, -9/+6How many more of the statements attributed to Ron Paul have been written by a ghost writer? Just how well do the Paulbots and the rest of America know this man's true views?
        • mnewcomb, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5Actions speak louder than words my friend...

          If this is the best you can do to smear Ron Paul's good name... congratulations...

          I'll take Ron Paul's word over another's because he has earned the benefit of the doubt...
        • indyattic, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3Oh please. Your candidates "true" views are far more dangerous than anything little ol' Ron Paul could possibly think. Paul's is not a liar, he is not a cheat, he is not in bed with corporations. He's not even a racist.
    • pbaehr, on 12/28/2007, -6/+31The burden of proof should fall on the person making the claim, not the other way round. I don't know anything about this statement so I'm not going to argue about whether or not it's true, but it's hardly fair to ask someone to disprove a claim.

      "In the summer of 1992, Bill and Hillary Clinton bought seven babies from a Korean family and, using a cordless drill, harvested their blood to power a machine which would bring about the end of the world. They were foiled by a gang of teenagers and a dog who could kind of talk, but not very clearly. To this day they defend their actions as totally just."

      Now, is it fair to assume this is true unless someone can give me hard proof otherwise?
      • iancorey, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Ruh-roh, Rhaggy!
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7People are simply providing a quote from a newsletter published by Ron Paul. Is it not logical to assume that the contents of said newsletter were written by Paul himself, considering there were no other authors mentioned? At the very least, is it not logical to assume that the views written in HIS newsletter are HIS views?

        I absolutely agree with you that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claims, but in this case, the burden is certainly Paul's. It is his claim that he didn't write this, nor are they his views. Fair enough. But you can't fault people for wondering if Paul is lying to make himself more appealing to a nation-wide audience.
        • emjaymj, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul came under fire for this WELL before announcing his intentions of candidacy and he had the same explanation back in 2001. Why would he write something in a PUBLIC newsletter only to deny it when politically he was in the same boat as when he wrote it? Oh, that's right, it makes no sense.

          And having read the "racist" article in question, it may not be politically correct but even the ghost writer was not too far off in this case. They alluded to studies like this - http://books.google.com/books?id=selr6BDsMNAC&pg=P ... - which found that nearly half of the young black men in DC were at the time incarcerated or otherwise on parole, probation, etc. It also found that about 85% of black males in DC will be arrested at some point in their lives.

          What IS racism is ignoring REAL issues like these in favor of maintaining the veil of political correctness. We as a society cannot move forward if we are afraid to deal head-on with issues that happen to deal with race, religion, etc.
        • pbaehr, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1You're right. If the article offered sufficient proof for their claim and didn't just state something out of thin air then I suppose anyone challenging that claim is required to introduce new evidence to support their challenge.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1LOGIC! My hedz r t3h xpl0d1ng!1!11!!!1!
    • Pritchard, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6Was written by a Ghost-Writer. Ron Paul wanted to protect the Ghost-Writer, and who knows who was writing in his name at the time and why. It sounds like nothing I've EVER heard Ron Paul say throughout his career. All major media accepted that it wasn't him fairly quickly.
    • BobSutan, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Can I prove he didn't say it? No, just one cannot disprove there is no god. No offense, but it's a fundamental breakdown of logic to make such a request because the burden of proof is actually on the believer, or in this case dailykos to back up their claim. You may as way have asked "prove there isn't an invisible undetectable ethereal purple polka dot elephant standing next to me".
    • fromonesource, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1
      Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

      These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

      The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

      “This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

      This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

      Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

      Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

      An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

      "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 rem