Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Ron Paul's Bigotry

Suddenly Mitt Romney seems like a civil rights champion, compared to Ron Paul. At least Mitt "witnessed" his father "marching" with MLK, Jr - "metaphorically," of course.

Ron Paul in '92:

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, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Bigotry - irrational, creepy and absolutely unnacceptable for anyone holding a public position. Ron Paul doesn't deserve to be elected President, he deserves to be unseated from his position in the House.

8 comments:

Joel Patterson said...

Here's the really sad part of it all:

Ron Paul thinks it is good to remove our troops from Iraq and quit meddling in other countries' governments. He also thinks the power of the executive branch should be limited by the law (and the courts and Congress).

He's right about those two things--and if you are a Republican, you can't get those two sane positions from any other Republican candidate.

In one sense, I feel sorry for Republican voters who believe in limited government and no preventive wars, because they are stuck with Ron Paul. But in another sense, I don't feel sorry for them at all because look who they allowed to dominate their party for the past seven years. The few sane people left in the GOP have long hard slog to bring their party closer to the land of the sane.

genetrosper said...

And someone who doesn't do their homework before posting a blog should think twice before hitting the "publish" button.

Read and be educated:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

Joel Patterson said...

Well, genetrosper, I've checked out the kos link, and I've checked out your link, and your link doesn't have any direct refutations of what Ron Paul said about black males in DC. Your link talks about Stormfront, which is fine as far as it goes, but Ryan's point is that Ron Paul in 1992 expressed the milder racism of white people who believe African American males are just more violent and more criminal than white males.

Have you ever been to the part of Texas Ron Paul represents? Walk into a Luby's Cafeteria filled with nice plump white people enjoying a hearty bland meal after church services. Strike up a conversation, steer it toward the topic of African Americans, and you'll likely hear something along the lines of "they're inherently criminal."

joel Patterson said...

Just to be crystal clear, when one makes arguments that a person's skin color is a sign of criminality, that is bigotry.

It may not disqualify a candidate from getting your vote, genetrosper, but it does disqualify Ron Paul from getting my vote.

joe said...

I'm going to question the veracity of that article. The only available copy of what Ron Paul "said" was posted by a White Supremacist and Holocaust denier. That is unless, you consider people who believe in racial superiority and deny painstakingly recorded history to be completely honest in their web postings.

Joel Patterson said...

Ron Paul's been writing a newsletter for a long time. If he wants to refute that he wrote that bigoted statement, he can send one of his campaign workers to the file cabinet to give us all a copy of what he actually wrote.

But he hasn't, and he won't. Because while that passage is racist and embarrassing to you, Joe, it is a commonplace thought from that part of Texas. Most certainly in 1992 after the L.A. riots, and probably still today.

At this point, I'd be surprised if he didn't write it.

Anonymous said...

Joel, read your own words regarding "nice plump white people enjoying a hearty bland meal after church services" and ask yourself who is the bigot. You have just labeled an entire group of people as racist simply based on geographics.
I don't care for Ron Paul, but don't rail about something you appear to be guilty of yourself.

Joel Patterson said...

anonymous, you're assuming a false equivalence here. Ron Paul asserted that 95% of black males in DC were criminal. I asserted that if, based on my own experience, that in the suburbs south of Houston, if you get a group of all white people together talking and raise the subject of African Americans, you will likely hear someone say something along the lines of Ron Paul's assertion. Most likely no one will drop the n-word, as that wouldn't be "nice" but still, the substance of the statement will imply inferiority/criminality on the basis of skin color.

As for using the word "plump," well, the suburban lifestyle of living in air-conditioned homes, driving in air-conditioned cars to air-conditioned buffets--it's a life of some comfort. More comfort than a life in DC, on balance, I would say. I don't think writing my sentence that way is in the same ballpark as Ron Paul (who, of course, is not plump) saying "95% of black males in DC are criminals." Tell you what, put it to the test: next African American person you walk past, ask them to compare. See if they think the two statements are equivalent.

About Ryan's Take