Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Here are digitally scanned images of Ron Paul's newsletters: Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters

Here are some of the comments made in Ron Paul's newsletters:

Source: Angry White Man (I suggest anyone serious about supporting Ron Paul read the entire article.)


On blacks in the LA Riots:

"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,"

Looting is natural for blacks because of "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda."

On blacks/animals

Referring to a black neighborhood: "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."

"I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Blacks want to rename New York City to: "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis"

Koreans are good "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

On Apartheid in South Africa:

Referring to the end of apartheid in South Africa: it was the "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

On Martin Luther King Jr.:

Martin Luther King Jr. was: "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy.

King was "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

On David Duke:

"Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom."

Regardless of whether you believe that Paul wrote the essays himself, the conclusion of this essay is unescapable and I agree wholeheartedly with it:

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

This forum is full of Ron Paul supporters. Y'all are just going to turn a blind eye to this? Wow.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Troianii

I'm gonna need a link that works.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Links repaired. You got links that work now.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

FRYandBENDER

Perhaps they would like to take a break and read other topics for a change.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

That is a totally dishonest reply, Fry and I really expected more from you. You see a smoking gun and your reply is to attack the messenger who told you about it. There is evidence right in front of you of Paul's racism and you don't even try to address it. You imply that the contents of the newsletter are false, yet you do not openly state it or show it. Settle it right here and right now if Paul is a racist or not. It's just lying to evade the evidence.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

FRYandBENDER

Dishonest my ass. When I first saw the thread I skipped right over it because I know that even if I could say enough to actually prove that his stances are from the view point of libertarianism and not bigotry I don't think you would believe it. Now that I have read it I'll admit that there are a few fucked up excerpts in there, but you said yourself, as well as the article, that you don't know if he wrote it or not.

All I said was that maybe his supporters are tired of reading these threads. I did not mention or imply anything about the newsletters.

I don't know the guy. I've never met him. I'm not going to decide whether or not he is a racist based on an article that quotes news letters that he may or may not have written. The most offensive thing I read in the article was where he supposedly called black people animals.

You said that this was written about a black neighborhood. Unless you're saying that all urban criminals are black then how can this really be targeted towards criticizing blacks. If I were in DC you better believe I'd be carrying. I've been there before.

The bolded parts are the pieces you emphasized and the underlined part is by my emphasis. Besides the fact that there is no mention of race in any of this, the whole point of this analysis is how an anti-big government candidate scared the "establishment" who is presumably pro-big government. There is no mention of Paul, or whoever wrote it, endorsing Duke's fucked up involvement in the KKK.
Who knows? I've never heard of this, but stranger shit has happened. I might try looking this up later.

So he sees using the government to forcefully separate people and to forcefully make people live, work, or whatever together as equally abhorrent. Do you think that the government should have the power to make a certain number of black people to live in a predominantly white neighborhood or vice versa? His views as a libertarian are that you can't tell someone that they can't live or go to school somewhere based on their race, nor can you make someone live or go to school somewhere based on their race. Basically, you take race and the government out of the equation and let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.




Before I finish reading the article and look into this other stuff, let me say that, in my case at least, I support Ron Paul because of his small government views. I've not googled "ron paul racism" or anything because prior to your threads, which to date this one is the only one to warrant further reading, because when I hear about someone, regardless of who it is, I don't google them trying to see if they're racist or not. So I see this thread where you put out this alleged information about his racism and quoting things that until now I've never heard of and you demand proof to the contrary. I'm at work dude. I'll give you my word that since you're so passionate about the subject that I'll look into it and try to research this stuff a little, maybe this weekend when I have time, and try to come up with an answer for you, but Christ sakes, this thread has been up for barely 6 hours. Give me, and everyone else who has never heard of any of this, a little time.

But yeah, I'm pretty tired of talking about how evil he is. At this point, seeing as how it seems he has no chance of really winning, I would have figured you would have moved on.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Who cares what I believe? Examine the evidence and then come to your own conclusion. Why should the thread be about what I believe? Why should you examining the evidence be based upon what I believe? Your rationale makes no sense. The thread is about what the thread says: Ron Paul's newsletter and how it's choc-full of racism.

Again, the fact that people don't know who wrote these articles is irrelevant given that they have been put in Ron Paul's newsletter over a period of several years. You cannot do that without consent from Ron Paul.

No, they don't want to face the fact that the Great Saviour of liberty is a racist and when you have digitally scanned Ron Paul newsletters it's hard to argue that it's a conspiracy this time.

So if I start a newsletter called the "W.E.B. Du Bois on Political Forum newsletter" and it says White people are animals and George Washington was a child molestor and white people should change the names of where they live to incestville or KKK-land or white trash land and I said "I didn't write that stuff" then you wouldn't think any less of me for it?

Calling blacks animals, crime and racial war is a running them in Ron Paul's newsletters. It fits into the many other racist remarks in the newsletter.

David Duke is being mentioned in this. Last time I checked, David Duke is the leader of one of the most racist groups in the United States. The letter is saying that he did a good thing scaring the establishment and that what he did was good. Given that the Ron Paul newsletter is praising Duke's accomplishments, that is Ron Paul's endorsement of Duke and that is why Duke speaks favorably of Ron Paul.

It's an interesting coincidence isn't it, that the same people who think that blacks are animals, also think King is a pedophile. A purely random coincidence I'm sure.

Do you support segregation? The government has outlawed it. That is "big government" at work. That is what Ron Paul is protesting. The government never told anyone hey you, white guy, you go and live in the projects right now, so the question you asked about that is obfuscation.

As for busing, I would say that racism has to be stopped one way or the other. I'm not choosey in how it gets stopped. If people want to stop it by taking funds away from white schools until that funding is equal to black school, that is fine with me. Public schools are part of the government, so the question really is if you will allow the government to be used for or against racism.

My prior thread did warrant further reading, as it had the same kind of content as this one, it just had less of it. If this thread behooves further research, so did the last one. I wonder if it's just the issue of racism that warrants the dismissal you mention. I would think that if someone's record on any issue is being alleged to be phony, that it would prompt someone to Google it.

I've demanded no proof of the contrary. It's just being honest that if you are going to try to defend a person from the evidence presented that you actually look at the evidence presented.

Ron Paul NEVER had a chance of winning. You and I both know this forum is saturated with Ron Paul supporters. Is it right that only lies about his alleged greatness should be spread around, when he is in fact a racist?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

FRYandBENDER

How would I do this with out proof?

I'll get to the rest later. I've got to drive to fucking Atlanta tonight.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I never asked you to go get any proof, you said that I did.

Let's not obfuscate the issue here by trying to bring in people's personal lives here or make this about the timing of your responses. This thread will be here, with Ron Paul's newsletter on it, whenever you feel like reading it.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.