Even if Paul, as he claims, didn't write or utter one of the offensive words, or hold the sentiments, that are attributed to him, his odd mish mash of ultra conservatism and libertarian spoutings marks him as suspect.Typical of HuffPo leftists, that is, statist collectivists: guilty until proven innocent. This is the kind of thought that always devolves into show trials when their ideological kindred, the communists, establish a monopoly of power.
Hey Earl, how come you're always so preoccupied with race--aside from the fact that you earn a handsome living stoking the fires? Do you ever write an article where it's not your central theme? Doing a bit of projecting here?
Well you and your racist fellow travelers haven't quite taken over yet, and conservative/libertarian throwback that I am, I still believe the accused should be presumed innocent. So being an equal opportunity exposer of loudmouths, liars and just plain idiots, regardless of race, color or creed, I'll give you the same challenge that all the other loudmouths, liars and just plain idiots have so far failed to man up to:
List all the quotes by him--along with a credible source--where Dr. Paul has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement--and by that I mean a statement advocating that whites are superior and other races are inferior.If you're going to publicly speculate about another human being's character and ethics, Earl, let's see what you've got to justify the damage that will do to his reputation among people relying on you as a source of truth.
Find a statement by him where he advocates either an enhancement or reduction of liberty for individuals belonging to any group of people based on their ethnicity.
Take the challenge, Earl. Put up or shut up. To do otherwise is immoral and cowardly, the work of a mere assassin, not a challenger.
And that goes for the rest of you irresponsible accusers, too. What do I have to do around here, start posting another daily graphic?
15 comments:
I don't want to get in an argument over Paul's role in the newsletters (which is where I take issue), but to suggest Paul is a racist merely because of his (or anyone's for that matter) political beliefs is ridiculous.
You're right, by the standard Earl applies, he too should prove his lack of racism.
I don't disagree with you, Stan, that could and should be handled better, but in reality, the whole old newletter thing is just the entree to imply RP is a racist--that is the only motivation for its reintroduction now.
We can all debate in good faith over what candidates say and do, what we think the impact of this or that policy they're proposing will be, and that's all fine. But what we're seeing here is an ongoing campaign to just get the buzzwords "racist" and "loon" attached to RP and his followers--low mudslinging, mere insults and outright lies that serve to lead us away from examining the people, their credentials, the issues, etc.
And I'm also less than satisfied with the responsiveness and some of the decisions coming out of the RP campaign. I excuse them because it's got to be overwhelming and they're making it up as they go along, and most of them are volunteers, but sometimes I just shake my head. Like why hasn't he said anything yet about DOJ and Heller? Or why did his staffers blow his attendance at the NRA Values event? etc.
So seeing this, I can also see how something could have gotten away from his control many years ago--and remember, we're looking at it through the lens of TODAY'S conditioned political correctness--fewer can claim being so sensitive decades ago.
Case in point--I have referred to violent criminals before as animals, monsters, goblins, you name it. The thought of race had nothing to do with it--the innocent victim is the human being, the bad guy is the asshole--what color they are has nothing to do with anything. A violent white attacking an innocent black deserves to be repelled, with lethal force if necessary, end of story. Does anyone have evidence to show RP would feel otherwise?
Just last night on CNN, they profiled an Iraqi boy who had gasoline poured on him and he was set on fire by another faction--a poor little kid they're trying to get surgery for. My first reaction was "Those animals!"
All I could feel was empathy for the child and hatred for his evil and cowardly assailants. Obviously, as everyone involved was Iraqi, my "animal" thought was for the behavior, not for the people.
My little challenge here is a two-edged sword, Stan, and I never intended it to be anything else. If someone can meet it and substantiate the man is a bonafide racist, I'll drop him like a hot potato, apologize to all I may have influenced to support him, and condemn him just as loudly as anyone.
That's because it would be the right thing to do. Just as it would be right for the people who have made but cannot substantiate their allegations to do.
If they're going to accuse someone of something that serious, that damaging, anyone who doesn't demand a standard of direct and confirmable evidence may come to rue the day when the finger points at them.
How about this Earl? I don't know what race you are, but as I suspect you are not a fully qualified member of the HUMAN race I will state my belief that you are certainly an inferior.
I base this solely on your "monkey see, monkey copy" bullshit.
I don't care if Ron Paul personally never wrote the kind of filth that was going out over his name for over 10 years.
So do you really want to argue that it's OK, he didn't know? I can tell you that any doctor with half a brain had better know what's in any newsletters he puts out, practice related or not, since if he gets sued a plaintiff's lawyer will be going over them with a fine toothed comb.
look at the reactions from inside the campaign
http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html
Peter B, what did I ask?
My criteria are not difficult at all to read and understand.
But thanks for publicly failing to address them and helping me prove my point.
Next?
Sorry, David, I know it's your blog and you can set up whatever criteria. I do like some of the questions Ron Paul asks but the newsletter disqualifies him as far as I'm concerned. He's a smart man, and he does it all by hint, hint, wink wink. Not to mention the affinity he has for Truthers and worse.
But let's say the racism verdict comes back "not proven." I'll buy that.
What I won't buy is that even a busy man will let something go out over his name for more than 10 years without reading it to see what he's signing his name to.
"Oh it was a staffer I should have fired." Give me a break.
On top of that, part of being a grownup is knowing which of the rules you have to obey. Returning donations from neo-Nazis is one of the ones you have to obey in politics today. Ron Paul evidently thinks he's special. That's not a good sign.
The Republican party did a wise thing with its purges in the 50s and 60s. Both the hardline Objectivists and Birchers had to go. Ron Paul uses language that is strongly reminiscent of the isolationist paranoids and cranks that used to make the Republican name stink.
For him and/or his supporters to then act like insulted virgins because people are reminded of the America Firsters and Father Couglin to me in and of itself disqualifies him from serious consideration. Obviously YMMV.
I've already addressed everything you've commented on elsewhere on this blog. The only thing germane to this thread is your admission: let's say the racism verdict comes back "not proven." I'll buy that.
Peter, yeah, throw him out! We elect the people that we like and who say all the pretty things we want to hear, then are outraged...not enough to DO anything about it, when they stab us in the back repeatedly.
Here's a guy who actually has the record to back up his claims and we'll just pitch a tantrum because some dipshit dredges up a newsletter that someone else wrote and he signed.
Wrap your skull around this; We're voting for the person BEST QUALIFIED TO UPHOLD THE OFFICE AND THE CONSTITUTION! That's it. This isn't a vote for the best person ever award. I'd throw you a dollar to buy a clue, but I'd rather give it to someone where it can do some good...like the bum on the corner who has admitted he has a problem. He knows he's killing himself, you seem to be under the delusion that voting for someone that won't trash ALL of the constitution is a good thing.
If you want to play games perhaps you can explain to me why Robert Byrd is good enough to be in line for the presidency when he was in the KKK? Dr. Paul, the not racist, isn't good enough because he dared to associate in some way with someone who held racist views.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for shitting on my rights.
I've invented the term "PuffHos" for that particular community. Feel free to use it.
Well, at least you must admit Peter is appropriately named. ;)
Now answer the question. You took your shots as though you had answers to the challenge, but you never addressed that. Just whom is it that is doing the nod, nod, wink, wink?
And no, I won't be voting for Ron Paul, so you can't excuse my complaint of your dishonesty with the claim I have a political agenda in this regard.
Now answer the damn question. I don't think Paul is qualified, but for reasons that are provable as his position. I actually like Dr. Paul and if the domestic issues are all we would ever face, I would vote for him. But that is not the case and I care not which enemy destroys my country, foreign or domestic, I'm against it. Dr. Paul is not an enemy of my country, but his stance in their regard is, I think, destructive, though I also think it is unintentional and a result of his high ideals and lack of understanding that there are people who are just evil.
He, however, is not. Now address the challenge, or just admit you are a cheap shot artist. If you played baseball you would Pete Rose.
A topic I will be addressing real soon, SA, because I hope you don't think I am naive when it comes to security, both domestic and international...
Here's the photographic proof... ;)
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
To me, overt racism isn't the only reason to oppose Ron Paul, so I don't need to answer David's question.
Take your pick: Ron Paul is such a dolt that he let this filth go out over his name for over 10 years without his knowing (what a great qualification for the presidency) or he's not a dolt and he let the filth go out with his knowledge.
I've been around long enough to have seen a lot of cranks and wingnuts, and to know that they can be right some of the time.
I just don't want one in the White House.
Answering my querstion is the only reason for this post and these comments. Utterly incapable to address the issue under discussion you resort to ad hominem.
David Codrea said...
A topic I will be addressing real soon, SA, because I hope you don't think I am naive when it comes to security, both domestic and international...
No, I do not. I await your post. Perhaps you can change my mind. I am not happy with any of them of either party. I am almost to the point of setting the enemy dog loose so that those who say they are on my side have to fight for their political lives by opposing her. Gridlock would be good, at least better than what are getting now.
Post a Comment