Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul Responds to Ryan Sager
Reason contributor and The Elephant in the Room author Ryan Sager has gone after Ron Paul for this mid-1990s quote, originally dug up by a rival campaign in 1996.
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
Sager wrote that "focusing on the 'negative,' 'powerful' Israel lobby—above and beyond any other lobby—counts as a form of anti-Semitism. It's not even a close call." At a media availability this morning (thanks to the American Spectator), I read that quote to Paul and asked him to explain what he meant and whether he stood by it.
I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct. But I wouldn't back away from saying that AIPAC is very influential in our political process. That's a little bit different than saying the Israeli government, but I think that the Israeli position is very influential, which is very interesting because some of you may have seen this—just recently, there was an article out that studied which groups of people were most opposed to the Iraq War. And the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war. Yet the group that is most opposed to the Iraq War are the American Jews. Seventy-seven percent are now opposed to the war, which is a powerful message.
It reminds me of the AMA. The AMA doesn't protect me as a doctor who believes in free market medicine. They don't represent the grassroots. I don't think AIPAC represents the Jewish community. If I say some things in this country, it could be exactly what the [Labor Party]* in Israel says, and they would agree with me. But over here you get these kind of challenges, insinuated with, you know, "he's anti-Semitic" and all these things. But I'm pro-Constitution, and that's the foreign policy I talk about.
There were some things in a newsletter that wasn't actually written by me, so sometimes that gets a bit of distortion. I think the most important thing is what my views are and as a matter of fact I think our whole foreign policy is not helpful to Israel. It's actually ultimately very damaging to Israel. We restrict Israel, we're more likely to come in and tell them they can't do this, they can't do that. Israel has made overtures to Syria, which is great, and yet we've told them "don't talk to Syria or we'll cut off your money." It's that kind of stuff. I think the image that the Arabs and Muslims are all controlled by Osama bin Laden is absolutely erroneous. Israel and Egypt came to terms. I think ultimately we stir the pot and it's very harmful to Israel.
Sean Higgins of Investor's Business Daily followed up to ask what Paul meant when he said AIPAC "controls the votes" and whether they're "influential to the bad or influential to the good."
I think it depends on the issue. I remember one time in the early '80s they were influential because the United States and the United Nations was condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear site. I believe that was the issue, or it was an issue like that, but I was one of the very few that said Israel has every right in the world to do what is necessary for their national sovereignty. On an issue like that they were right. On an issue like Iran, I don't think it's in their interests and I don't think it's in our interests. There's a lot of Jews in Israel who agree and I'd bet you there are a lot of Jews in this country that would agree that taking on Iran right now—I can't think of anything more absurd. And the idea that we wouldn't even take off the table a nuclear first strike on Iran who is incapable of attacking us. If they want me to vote to go to war against Iran, that would be be bad. If they want me to defend Israel's position of defending their borders and doing what's in their best interest, I'd say that's good.
*Paul said "Liberal Party" but he was clearly talking about Labor.
|5.22.07 @ 10:35AM|#
That's rather an extraordinary statement; to use the Israeli
lobby an an example of a powerful interest group that lobbies for
government favor is indisputably anti-semitic.
So, if Paul had singled out the retired people's lobby, Sager would
have said it counts as a form of ageism, it isn't even a close
call.
If Paul had singled out the union movement as having a powerful
lobby, Sager would have written that it counts as a form of class
prejudice, and isn't even a close call.
If Paul had singled out the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, Sager would
have written that it counts as a form of anti-capitalism, and isn't
even a close call.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrre he would have.
|5.22.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Why does it matter that the quote was "dug up by a rival
campaign"? Ron Paul wrote those words in a newsletter which had his
name in the title.
It's not character assassination or dirty politics to hold someone
responsible for things he said or wrote or did.
Thomas Stevens|5.22.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Ron Paul is rubber and you are glue
Your mud bounces off of him
and stick to you.
|5.22.07 @ 10:44AM|#
More quotations from Paul's newsletter (republished by his
supporters, then dug up by his opponents) here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Thomas Stevens|5.22.07 @ 10:47AM|#
He also said that black people were responsible for the LA riots. RACIST!
|5.22.07 @ 10:47AM|#
What is extraordinary is that there are orthodox Jews who oppose the state of Israel, but they aren't called anti-semitic. yet Ron Paul states that the Israel lobby is a powerful influence and all of a sudden he is anti-semetic.
|5.22.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Yeah, it was the white man who orchestrated the riots. The beating of Reginald Denny at Florence & Normandie was a set up by the honky cabal.
|5.22.07 @ 10:52AM|#
"The AMA doesn't protect me as a doctor who believes in free
market medicine."
FLASH! Ron Paul hates doctors!
|5.22.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Libertarians are all extreme right-wingers.
Extreme right-wingers are all Nazi racists.
Therefore, Ron Paul is a Nazi racist.
Thomas Stevens|5.22.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Wow, I was reading that dailykos fooferaw, and Mia Dolan is exceptionally well uninformed. She must have studied the news intensively to get so well uninformed.
|5.22.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and
burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
When is it racist to reference sociological statistics and the
rational biases that may result from them?
|5.22.07 @ 11:17AM|#
I personally think blind loyalty to the state of Israel is
something we should rightfully question, but that would apply to
any special interest group that lobbies for certain foreign policy
stances.
All of this underscores why an activist, interventionist, intrusive
and huge government is a danger to peace and prosperity at home and
abroad.
Ron Paul is prudent and right by not caving into playing along with
the fuzzy terminology of leading questions. Identity politics and
group think have made intellectual discourse into a mine field of
distractions.
|5.22.07 @ 11:18AM|#
It's not character assassination or dirty politics to hold
someone responsible for things he said or wrote or did.
Or even to hold him responsible for things that *other* people said
or wrote under his name, if he was negligent in letting them say
them or write them under his name.
But it *is* character assassination to say that he said or wrote
things that other people said or wrote under his name, especially
when he doesn't hold those views.
Sean Healy|5.22.07 @ 11:19AM|#
It's not just that Aipac gets singled out, it's that its power and influence are consistently and grossly exaggerated - much like the power and influence of Jews in general have historically been grossly exaggerated. It is therefore defensible to question the motives behind statements like Paul's. Does anyone really think it's unreasonable to arch an eyebrow when the rhetoric about Aipac closely tracks the rhetoric of anti-Semitism? To me, the "Zionists stifle criticism" meme is a dead giveaway - Zionists are too busy shovelling back a rising tide of BS that flows from the PA directly into Western newsrooms (I work in one and see it regularly) to coordinate effective stifling. Seriously, do the Israel haters out there appear even slightly inhibited? And do amateurs like Paul realize that Israel is a much more effective counter-terrorist forward deployment than the "surge"?
Sean Healy|5.22.07 @ 11:21AM|#
...which is to say Israel does more on behalf of American foreign policy than America does for the Israelis.
Thomas Stephen|5.22.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Yes, the fact that America is close buddies with a Jewish state in the middle of the "holy land" is always winning us all sorts of Arab friends, Sean.
|5.22.07 @ 11:28AM|#
"Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Libertarians are all extreme right-wingers.
Extreme right-wingers are all Nazi racists.
Therefore, Ron Paul is a Nazi racist."
This discussion isn't about all libertarians. No one is accusing
Nick Gillespie or Penn Jillette of racism. This is about one
libertarian and the things he has written, and about many other
libertarians eager to excuse those vile racist sentiments out of
misguided hero worship.
|5.22.07 @ 11:30AM|#
"Or even to hold him responsible for things that *other* people
said or wrote under his name, if he was negligent in letting them
say them or write them under his name.
But it *is* character assassination to say that he said or wrote
things that other people said or wrote under his name, especially
when he doesn't hold those views."
Do you have any evidence that someone else wrote the Ron Paul
newsletter under Ron Paul's name without Ron Paul's knowledge or
approval?
|5.22.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Yeah, you pretty only see the "criticism of AIPAC is by definition antisemitism" from people who think that "Israel does more on behalf of American foreign policy than America does for the Israelis."
VM|5.22.07 @ 11:32AM|#
ZZZZOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM
*watches ProGLib's humor zoom right on by Daze.
**take thoughtful bite of tater tot
Der ewige Jude|5.22.07 @ 11:34AM|#
And do amateurs like Paul realize that Israel is a much more
effective counter-terrorist forward deployment...
Yup. Thanks to Israel terrorism has almost been wiped out.
Jesse Walker|5.22.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Do you have any evidence that someone else wrote the Ron
Paul newsletter under Ron Paul's name without Ron Paul's knowledge
or approval?
Well, that's what Paul said. Given that he offered that explanation
while he wasn't running for anything, and that I already knew he
employs ghostwriters, I don't find it difficult to believe. Though
it still leaves him open to the charge of, at the very least, not
showing good judgment when hiring writers.
The point is moot in the case of the AIPAC comment, though, since
no fair-minded person could consider it anti-Semitic.
|5.22.07 @ 11:41AM|#
those vile racist sentiments
From the article:
The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington
are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested
at some point in their lives.
Now...is that racist? Because he quoted crime statistics? And then
went on to say that because the DC police suck balls, the numbers
are more likely higher than the statistics show?
C'mon...be specific about your accusations of "vile" comments. Try
it...go on...don't rely on some jerkwads summary from a
blog...let's see you argue which comments are vile racist
comments.
'cause otherwise, you're just another sycophant dirt thrower.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Hey, I am truly glad to hear Ron Paul confirm that he does not
hate Jews or Israel.
I did not really believe that he did and I thought the people
saying he did were exagerating or 'fairbanksing' just because they
did not like him.
Now, about this business:
There's a lot of Jews in Israel who agree and I'd bet you there are a lot of Jews in this country that would agree that taking on Iran right now-I can't think of anything more absurd. And the idea that we wouldn't even take off the table a nuclear first strike on Iran who is incapable of attacking us.
Without more information I would agree that attacking Iran right
now is probably not a good idea. But the premise that you have to
wait until they can attack us, or our allies (beyond the
one they are attacking right now) is bizarre. Especially in light
of Pauls endorsement of Israel attacking the not-yet-operational
reactor in Iraq (did I read that right?) when Iraq did not have
capability of attacking Israel yet.
|5.22.07 @ 11:43AM|#
"Seriously, do the Israel haters out there appear even slightly
inhibited?"
That's the problem, Sean. Actual Israel-haters aren't the slightest
bit inhibited.
On the other hand, Israel supporters tempted to say things like "I
don't think it's a good idea for Olmert to widen the attacks on
Hezbollah" are inhibited as hell by the identity-politics,
victimological shrieking of stateside pioneer wanna bes, and that
is most certainly not good for us, or for Israel.
|5.22.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Ron Paul on American blacks: "our country is being destroyed by
a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be
identified by the color of their skin".
Can we have a show of hands: Who here agrees with those views? Who
thinks those are the views of a bigoted asshole?
Seriously, why does Ron Paul merit such blind hero worship and
weasely spin? Reason has never fallen for the "Ayn Rand was the
most enlightened human who ever lived, we must defend every word
she ever uttered" mindset. It's really depressing to see this place
becoming the "Ron Paul is the most enlightended human who ever
lived, we must defend every word he ever uttered" blog.
|5.22.07 @ 11:50AM|#
But the premise that you have to wait until they can attack
us, or our allies (beyond the one they are attacking right now) is
bizarre.
Fuck it, let's just attack all the countries that are not allied
with us right now...
Right, Guy??
WTF!!
Big fat Jew!|5.22.07 @ 11:51AM|#
There\'s a lot of Jews in Israel who agree and I\'d bet you
there are a lot of Jews in this country that would agree that
taking on Iran right now
I\'d like to add to this by saying there are probably alot of Jews
in Israel. Period!
|5.22.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Sager wrote that "focusing on the 'negative,' 'powerful'
Israel lobby-above and beyond any other lobby-counts as a form of
anti-Semitism. It's not even a close call
Sager's full of shit. It's not even a close call.
|5.22.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Daze,
The Urkobold® is the
"most enlightened human being who ever lived"...get it
right!
|5.22.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Ron Paul on American blacks: "our country is being destroyed
by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be
identified by the color of their skin".
Out of context quotes reveal a lot about the person who uses them
out of context.
The quote in question was part of a general discussion about the
attitudes of white Americans.
So Daze, why not print the statement that follows:
This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many,
entirely unavoidable.
Why not? Because it doesn't support your position.
So Daze, if I avoid a neighborhood with a high crime rate, and that
neighborhood happens to have a predominantly black population, am I
a racist?
There are many possible explanations for why crime rates are higher
among blacks, including poverty and the drug war. That does not
mean though that you can't discuss crime rates for racial
groups.
Listen, it's easy to look at those comments and say "gee, they
aren't politically correct at all". It's much harder to look at
those comments and say "he's clearly a racist".
It's like claiming Larry Summers is a misogynist.
|5.22.07 @ 12:01PM|#
If you avoid a neighborhood because it's black, and assume it
has a high crime rate because you see black people there, you are a
racist.
EVEN IF you carry around a notebook full of statistics showing that
black people, like men and Texans, commit a disproportionate share
of violent crime.
|5.22.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Do you have any evidence that someone else wrote the Ron
Paul newsletter under Ron Paul's name without Ron Paul's knowledge
or approval?
Try this:
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/17/the-attack-machine-goes-after-ron-paul/
|5.22.07 @ 12:03PM|#
"And do amateurs like Paul realize that Israel is a much more
effective counter-terrorist forward deployment than the
"surge"?"
One of the things promoting terrorism against America is our
support for Israel. I believe with Ron Paul that our policy should
be neutral as regards to Israel as well as it should be towards all
countries.
|5.22.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"I think the most important thing is what my views are and
as a matter of fact I think our whole foreign policy is not helpful
to Israel. It's actually ultimately very damaging to Israel. We
restrict Israel, we're more likely to come in and tell them they
can't do this, they can't do that. Israel has made overtures to
Syria, which is great, and yet we've told them "don't talk to Syria
or we'll cut off your money." It's that kind of stuff. I think the
image that the Arabs and Muslims are all controlled by Osama bin
Laden is absolutely erroneous. Israel and Egypt came to terms. I
think ultimately we stir the pot and it's very harmful to
Israel."
As a Christian whose beliefs are aligned with Messianic Judaism, I
personally support Israel, spiritually and fiscally. As a
Libertarian, I do not want my government to necessarily follow
suit. That quote from Ron Paul is the most enlightened position I
have heard from any politician.
I want Ron Paul to be President, but he would also make a great
Secretary of State.
|5.22.07 @ 12:05PM|#
"...which is to say Israel does more on behalf of American
foreign policy than America does for the Israelis."
What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about 9/11
before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?
|5.22.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"I avoid a neighborhood with a high crime rate, and that
neighborhood happens to have a predominantly black population, am I
a racist?"
"If you avoid a neighborhood because it's black, and assume it has
a high crime rate because you see black people there, you are a
racist."
Now if I had done what you just did, you'd call me a troll and tell
me to fuck off... which you'll probably do anyway.
(But up until now, I've been WAY agreeing with you in this
thread...)
CB
|5.22.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Would it be anti-semitic and not-based-in-some-reality to say
that AIPAC, and their adherents, like to pull the anti-semitic card
whenever someone disagrees with them?
Is there not some truth in saying that there is a
disproportionately high crime rate in predominantly black
neighborhoods and a sort of anti-intellectualism in black, esp.
black youth culture without assigning racists motives to whoever
points this out? Is it not true that no one likes to point this out
for fear of being labeled a racist?
Would not a thinking man see some thruth in both of these
statements and admire the man for having the courage to speak out
without being \"hero worshippers\" or labeling him a \"vile
racist\" in knee-jerk fashion without first having examined what he
said?
|5.22.07 @ 12:10PM|#
RSJake wrote:
What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about 9/11
before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?
What if it's proven that the FBI knew about 9/11 beforehand and did
not do anything to warn us? Oh wait, they did and they didn't. Not
sure why I'd expect Israel to have more success warning us than the
FBI...unless you beleive they control all media.
|5.22.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Ron Paul on American blacks: "our country is being destroyed by a
group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be
identified by the color of their skin".
Out of context quotes reveal a lot about the person who uses them
out of context.
The quote in question was part of a general discussion about the
attitudes of white Americans.
So Daze, why not print the statement that follows:
This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many,
entirely unavoidable.
Why not? Because it doesn't support your position.
................
MP,
Try as you may to put a positive spin on it, that statement was
racist.
He refered to OUR (our being what? white?) country
being destroyed by other people who can be indentified by the color
of their skin.
Tom Walls|5.22.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Great piece and excellent followup, David.
As much as I dislike John Edwards, I don't believe he had a hand or
is even responsible for the anti-Christian stuff his two paid
staffers chose to blog.
Ron Paul has tons of Jewish supporters, and for God's sakes, his
stated favorite economists are Jewish.
This flap is just a grasping attempt by the soap-boxers of the war
machine to try to "get" Ron Paul. I fully endorse the rubber/glue
taunt expressed by Thomas Stevens above.
|5.22.07 @ 12:14PM|#
\"...like men and Texans, commit a disproportionate share of
violent crime.\"
Sir, as a man and Texan, I am deeply offended by your comments.
|5.22.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Here's the whole article:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
Here's the whole paragraph from which I quoted:
"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. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is,
for
many, entirely unavoidable."
Taken out of context, this last sentence might sound like Paul is
lamenting the racist view that all African-Americans are terrorists
destroying the country. However, the full column is one long rant
expressing that view.
R.Totale|5.22.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Great job, Dave. However, I think the AIPAC comments are the least of his problems. How about asking him to expand on some of the statements about blacks that have been quoted in this thread? Does he stand by them? Did someone else write them? I feel a little "icky" telling people I'm a Ron Paul supporter if he is going to allow those comments to stand.
|5.22.07 @ 12:19PM|#
\"He refered to OUR (our being what? white?) country being
destroyed by other people who can be indentified by the color of
their skin.\"
Except if you read the whole quote he didn\'t say that. He said
that for \'some white people it may be totally unavoidable to think
in those terms.\'
He was not condoning it nor was he agreeing with it. He was simply
saying that it is.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Fuck it, let's just attack all the countries that are not
allied with us right now...
Right, Guy??
Nope. But thanks for the entertaining hysteria!
|5.22.07 @ 12:22PM|#
"But the premise that you have to wait until they can attack us,
or our allies (beyond the one they are attacking right now) is
bizarre."
So should we nuke every country to the stone ages and keep them
there so they will never have the capability of attacking us?
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:24PM|#
What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about
9/11 before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?
What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:25PM|#
So should we nuke every country to the stone ages and keep
them there so they will never have the capability of attacking
us?
Nope, but thanks for the extra hysteria. Now, when you get out of
grade school mode I might start paying attention to you again.
|5.22.07 @ 12:25PM|#
If you avoid a neighborhood because it's black, and assume
it has a high crime rate because you see black people there, you
are a racist.
EVEN IF you carry around a notebook full of statistics showing that
black people, like men and Texans, commit a disproportionate share
of violent crime.
If I know that redneck Texas males are as equally prone to violent
criminal behavior as poor black urban men, shouldn't I be cautious
around both groups?
I guess that's one thing I've never understood about the racism
label. It's one thing to assume that all black people are
inherently inferior/evil/criminal/etc. It's quite another thing to
make particular decisions based on probabilities.
That, of course, engenders the whole profiling debate. However,
there is a big difference between actors of the state profiling its
citizens vs. individuals making decisions based on their own
profiling abilities.
|5.22.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Here\'s more:
\"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.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The
riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years
of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the
voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30
years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That\'s what blacks got on
the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn\'t ask
their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have \"civil riqhts,\" preferences, set-asides for
government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies,
black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv
shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws,
and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black
agenda.\"
---------------------------------------
This was right after the LA Riots, where emotions were
understandibly high, but
Am I a racist for basically agreeing with him?
|5.22.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Cracker's Boy, I don't know what your complaint is. I drew a
distinction there.
Pregnant Lesbian Sex, (If that is your real name),
There are many black neighborhoods that don't have high crime
rates. Drawing conclusions about individuals black people (or
individual men, or individual Texans) based on aggregate numbers
about groups as a whole is plainly racist, I'm sure you'd agree.
Drawing similar conclusions about individual black neighborhoods is
similarly racist.
Aha! I have caught you, "Pregnant Lesbian Sex!" Your email address
gives it away.
It's bad form to post under assumed names, Mr. Longhorns.
;-)
The Wine Commonsewer|5.22.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Sager's full of shit. It's not even a close call.
You know, I really wanted to be the first to say that.
|5.22.07 @ 12:29PM|#
"This flap is just a grasping attempt by the soap-boxers of the
war machine to try to "get" Ron Paul."
I'm not part of the war machine, and I'm pretty sure Daily Kos
isn't either.
For my part, I'm peeved at the "if you're a libertarian, you're
duty-bound to defend everything Ron Paul has ever said, written,
published, done and stood for" mindset that has popped up here.
This kind of unambiguous hero worship of any politician is
wrong-headed, and Paul is especially undeserving.
|5.22.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Not sure why I'd expect Israel to have more success warning us
than the FBI"
We had information that terrorists planned to fly planes into
buildings as far back as the Clinton administration. This
information wasn't taken seriously and no precautions were taken to
protect citizens. But there was no detailed information as to
specifically when the attacks were going to take place. From what I
understand, Israeli intelligence knew specifically when these
attacks were to take place but didn't inform us because they wanted
the attacks to take place to strengthen Americans' will to fight
the Israelis' enemies.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Daze,
This is starting to look like another waste of time. If you make
any criticism at all of anyting Ron Paul has spoken, then the
kindergarten nonsense flows.
|5.22.07 @ 12:33PM|#
For my part, I'm peeved at the "if you're a libertarian,
you're duty-bound to defend everything Ron Paul has ever said,
written, published, done and stood for" mindset that has popped up
here
Oh, BS. There's plenty of disagreement regarding Rep. Paul's
positions. I think his immigration stance blows. I think that
comments about closing the Federal Reserve are way unrealistic and
off-base. And I think every single supporter of Ron Paul can find a
position he holds that they disagree with.
|5.22.07 @ 12:35PM|#
And by the way, I do disagree on some of his points of
view(though remember this was 1992, I believe). But I\'m not so
thick that I don\'t see there is some, quite a bit, of truth in
what he is saying there.
And while I disagree with him, I still admire the man for giving us
his true opinion and not mincing words, wether I agree with him or
not. I
don\'t take his opinion as gospel truth but I like that he gives us
his honest ones.
I guess to those calling Paul a \"vile racist\" that would be hero
worship. Forgive me if I respectfully disagree.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:35PM|#
From what I understand, Israeli intelligence knew
specifically when these attacks were to take place but didn't
inform us because they wanted the attacks to take place to
strengthen Americans' will to fight the Israelis'
enemies.
Is that a paraphrase from The Protocals of the Elders of
Reason or something?
|5.22.07 @ 12:37PM|#
MP,
You don't come into contact with groups. You come into contact with
individuals, and you typically have much more information to go on
in deciding how to behave than their group membership. How are they
dressed? What are they doing? What's the neighborhood like? These
are all much more important than race.
Similarly, you walk into a neighborhood. What do the houses look
like? How are the yards maintained? Is there broken glass around?
Are there people out and about? How are they behaving? How are they
looking at you? You know, exactly the questions you'd ask yourself
if you were going into a white neighborhood.
If you see three black males in their 40s wearing suits on a park
bench across from a courthouse at lunch time, it makes no sense
whatsoever to behave any differently than if they were white.
|5.22.07 @ 12:42PM|#
joe wrote:
There are many black neighborhoods that don't have high crime
rates.
For example?
Drawing conclusions about individuals black people (or
individual men, or individual Texans) based on aggregate numbers
about groups as a whole is plainly racist, I'm sure you'd
agree.
Yup. And since you that's exactly the social policy that you
endorse...
|5.22.07 @ 12:47PM|#
\"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we
can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and
regulations.\"
- Ron Paul
\"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.\"
\"More importantly, 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.
Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should
understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms
of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual
liberty.\"
-Ron Paul
Wow, someone put a KKK hat on this guy. What a racist!
|5.22.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Lemur,
West Medford, Massachusetts.
Virtually all of Prince George's Country, Maryland.
Though your difficulty believing that statement is noted.
"And since you that's exactly the social policy that you
endorse..."
Thanks for putting that right after you tipped your hand about
black neighborhoods. It really makes it clear how seriously this
charge needs to be taken.
Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 12:51PM|#
"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't
change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations."
- Ron Paul
If this is a true statement, shouldn't his frothing supporters be
told that he is not an athiest? Well, maybe he did not mean the
above literally.
|5.22.07 @ 12:57PM|#
If this is a true statement, shouldn\'t his frothing
supporters be told that he is not an athiest? Well, maybe he did
not mean the above literally.
If some of his supporters believe Ron Paul is an atheist, they must
really be frothing at the mouth.
Ron Paul is a Christian, Protestant I believe. And from what I\'ve
read of Paul, I can say he indeed did probably mean that quite
literally.
Hell, pregnant lesbian sex may even qualify as sin somewhere in
there.
|5.22.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't
change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations."
Believe it or not, making sure white people have warm, fuzzy
feelings in their hearts is not the goal of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, or the Fair Housing Act.
|5.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#
As a "frothing supporter" of Ron Paul, I already know he is a
religious man. In fact he brought this entire subject up in his
latest campaign appearance:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013142.html
|5.22.07 @ 1:04PM|#
joe,
Why do you insert scenerios into conversation that nobody else has
brought up, and then call people racist?
You were the first one to mention that it WOULD be racist to merely
assume that a black neighborhood would have more crime (which, by
definition of the word "racist" is true).
You were the first to assert that there were in fact safe black
neighborhoods (nobody before you had made a comment to the
contrary).
What are you trying to incite?
Also, Daze... wtf? Accusing everyone who in this particular case is
defending Ron Paul's words or looking at the words in context of
being "duty-bound to defend everything Ron Paul has ever said,
written, published, done and stood for" is merely stifling
intelligent discourse. It's something the GWB crowd does well.
Fluffy|5.22.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Daze -
Since Paul has said he didn't write it, it comes down to whether
you believe him or not.
I tend to believe him, for two reasons:
1. Everything else he has ever written about race is basically
cribbed right out of Rand's writings, and when I compare what's in
the newsletter to what's up under Paul's name at Rockwell's site,
the prose just doesn't match and the content just doesn't
match.
2. Knowing the libertarian community the way I do, I know that
there are a relatively small number of "names" within the community
and a large number of people trying to trade off of those "names".
If Paul says he let these guys put his name on a newsletter because
he thought the positions in the newsletter would be congruent with
his own, that has a certain amount of plausibility to me because of
the insular community in which this occurred.
|5.22.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Reinmoose,
I brought up a variation on MP's scenario to further the discussion
of how the use of information about aggregate crime rates can be
racist, depending on its use.
And in case you haven't noticed, there are in fact people on this
thread who need the points I brought up pointed out to them.
|5.22.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Joe,
Anecdotal story about racism. Once upon a time, my former gf and I
moved to AL. My gf had waitressed all over the Northeast for many
years. In AL, she noticed something distinctly curious. A high
majority of the black patrons gave her minimal to no tips. A racial
component had never before entered into her tips in the Northeast,
but now suddenly, in AL, it was present. It made her eventually
loathe the prospect of getting black customers in AL, because of
the high probability of getting stiffed. Note that this was only
with black customers, not white, asian, hispanic, or any other
ethnic group.
Now, does that make my ex-gf a racist?
My point is that group probabilities and personal experiences play
key roles in predicting outcomes. Yes, you would like to think that
skin color is irrelevant always. But there are times where skin
color goes hand in hand with local cultural divides or local
socio-economic divides, and then color/ethnicity becomes quick
short-cut to an identifiable attribute in your decision making
process.
|5.22.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Good points, Fluffy.
I don't have any credibility issues with Paul because since the
mid-90's when I started keeping track of what he was saying in
speeches, op-ed's and interviews; he has been nothing but
consistent.
Additionally, the alleged quotes don't even match his style of
writing.
From: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205
QUOTE:
"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."
UNQUOTE
It seems to me that Paul's sense of honor meant taking
responsibility for something that was done in his name without
being a whiner about it.
|5.22.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Believe it or not, making sure white people have warm, fuzzy
feelings in their hearts is not the goal of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, or the Fair Housing Act.
Good point. But but Ron Paul might say(i think that\'s what he\'s
saying), and I would agree, that some of those Acts, without saying
specifically the two you mentioned, have had the opposite intended
effect and have kept black and white further segregated.
Not only that, but they\'ve fostered an attitude in
some(let\'s not get wrapped up in collectivism ourselves)
enclaves of the black population which believe they must be given
preferential treatment rather than simply a fair shake and equal
opportunities.
I would even argue that these laws and acts have helped to give
blacks the false idea that racism has been eliminated simply
because there are laws against it; thus causing an earth-shaking
fall to earth when they see it\'s not true.
This makes me even more inclined to agree with Paul\'s
statement!
(Wow, somethimes I impress myself with my arumentative prowess! ;P
)
Good discussion, though, Joe.
handsofaten|5.22.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Now...is that racist? Because he quoted crime statistics?
And then went on to say that because the DC police suck balls, the
numbers are more likely higher than the statistics show?
Why wouldn't he assume that the "actual" numbers of black criminals
are lower than the crime statistics show, since he also says
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. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is,
for many, entirely unavoidable.
He's not just quoting statistics. He's quoting them, assuming they
are wrong, and ratcheting them up to ridiculous levels. 95% of the
DC black population are criminals? Give me a break.
Indeed, in another part of his screed, Paul says "black criminals
always have the benefit of the doubt over white police."
His newsletter states that about 5% of black people have "sensible
political views" (i.e. the same political views he has), and
coincidentally 95% of black men are criminals. Yet the statistics
don't show this crime rate because the criminal justice system
always gives black people the benefit of the doubt over white
people. Meanwhile, the Rodney King riots were led by Trotskyites:
the Black Communist Revolution aided and abetted by the liberal
establishment.
Frankly, I find this thinking to be not just racist, but
conspiratorial and unstable.
Let's close with the final paragraphs of the newsletter:
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for
government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black
bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black
beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black
scholorships [sic] and colleges, hate crime laws, and public
humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said
that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting
this will be the major problem of the 1990s.
To me, it sounds a lot like an anti-semitic rant directed at black
people. His political machine can't be so big that he didn't know
this was being sent out in his name.
Dave W.|5.22.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Isn't HnR worried about losing some regular readers with entries like this?
|5.22.07 @ 1:20PM|#
He's quoting them, assuming they are wrong, and ratcheting
them up to ridiculous levels. 95% of the DC black population are
criminals? Give me a break.
How is going from 85% (the actual rate quoted) to 95%
"ridiculous"?
And since when are crime rate figures projections? Why would there
be any room to go but up?
|5.22.07 @ 1:22PM|#
It is true that Ron Paul's newsletter had other people involved.
In fact I suspect he wrote little of it himself. I beliee you will
find that people like Lew Rockwell authored sections of it and
Rockwell is often rather close to racists, anti-semites, and such
fringe individuals. Other rather extreme individuals like Gary
North formerly worked for Paul. His choice of employees has been
pathetically poor -- something he would no doubt agree on when it
comes to Dondero. Nor does it help when Paul speaks to racist
groups at their conferences, conventions or dinners which he has
done.
Under the rocks of this campaign there are lots of extreme Right
fringe groups clamouring for Paul. His conspiracy theories on
bankers fits right in with the Birchers. That is a problem and a
major problem for libertarians. This is why libertarians ought not
get on the Paul bandwagon. If anyone looks under those rocks the
libertarian movement as a whole can be discredited.
Libertarians were not routinely or regularly labeled as racists.
But with the rise of the Know Nothings and their
paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian alliance there has been a
systematic insertion of racial issues into libertarian politics
that is unprecidented. And as that happens more and more loonies on
the far Right start calling themselves libertarians. So they pratt
on about conspiracies, bankers, blacks, illegal immigrants, etc.
And all libertarians look bad because of it. I've stopped using the
label libertarian because I don't want to be confused with the
racists, bigots and such coming out of Alabama.
|5.22.07 @ 1:23PM|#
MP,
Whether to tip 5% or 20% is attirbutable to "local cultural divides
or local socio-economic divides."
Whether to cut your throat and take your wallet is not.
I can attest that, in certain places, the correlation between a
customer's race and his propensity to tip is significant enough
that a meaningful conclusion can be drawn from his race.
You can know, with something over 50% probability, that you're
going to get a bad tip from the family at Table 3, because they are
black. Maybe something like half or more of black customers in
certain communities tip below what the majority of Americans
consider normal. If a race-only statistical analysis reveals that
the chances of getting a good tip from Table A is 10%, while from
Table B it's 70%, it might be rational to put more effort into
providing Table B with good service.
No similar statement can be made about black people and violent
crime. Nothing remotely close to 50% of black males are looking to
mug you. It's probably more like 1%, or less. Millions upon
millions of people walk by black men in their teens or 20s every
day without being attacked by them. They outnumber those who are
attacked by, I would guess, somewhere between 1000:1 and 100,000:1.
It would be irrational in the extreme to act as though you are
facing a security risk because a race-only-based judgement of the
odds of getting mugged by the three guys in front of a certain
house have a 0.08% chance of mugging you, while going merrily about
your business if the odds are 0.02%.
Dave W.|5.22.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Yooo thinkin' of goin' someplace, thar, DW?
Not just when things are getting Dave-W-a-licious. I miss my RCD
sometimes, tho. Maybe you can get him over to the Grill-Aides.
Dave Weigel|5.22.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Isn't HnR worried about losing some regular readers with
entries like this?
Not really.
handsofaten|5.22.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Okay, having read some of the comments posted while I was writing that post, I can accept that this "newsletter" is not an accurate representation of Paul's viewpoints. But I do think it is unreasonable to defend the statements in the newsletter, which are clearly unstable racist rants (and which some people were trying to defend earlier in the thread).
dhex|5.22.07 @ 1:27PM|#
"Israel does more on behalf of American foreign policy than
America does for the Israelis."
no one has actually said this seriously, though, right...
right?
ever get the feeling the world is trolling you and ya just don't
know?
dhex|5.22.07 @ 1:29PM|#
joe, while i dig your table waiting/crime comparison, isn't it
simply a matter of degrees?
i've also heard from waiter-y types that sunday church crowds tip
badly too.
handsofaten|5.22.07 @ 1:33PM|#
And since when are crime rate figures projections? Why would there
be any room to go but up?
Sorry, I thought I was being clear: false convictions due to the
fact that it is "unavoidable" that people will assume black men are
criminals. Or do you think that a bad criminal justice system can
only be too lax?
I think arbitrarily raising a statistical figure by 10 percentage
points based on pure speculation is ridiculous. Maybe we just
disagree on that, but I don't think that's the accepted norm for
dealing with stats.
|5.22.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Paul's little riff on black crime in DC also makes the following
two assumptions:
When government produces a report about a problem, it tends to
understate its severity, and
Being involved in the criminal justice system = being a dangerous
criminal whose character makes on unfit to live in society. (I
wonder which shortcomings in Italian culture Paul attributes crime
among urban Italians during Prohibition?)
I've been talking politics with libertarians for some time now, and
I don't recall finding much support for those sentiments before
this thread.
|5.22.07 @ 1:35PM|#
No similar statement can be made about black people and
violent crime.
Yes, but now you're disputing the statistical baseline for the
analysis, not the analysis itself.
If the numbers did show that there was a significant
racial basis for violent crime rates, would you agree that making
decisions about crime avoidance based on race is rational and not
racist?
Note that I've never once defended the statements in that
newsletter as being correct. I'm simply not jumping to the
conclusion that they are racist.
|5.22.07 @ 1:37PM|#
dhex,
First of all, attributing a propensity to tip poorly is rather less
objectionable than attributing a propensity to commit battery,
theft, and rape.
Second, a difference is degree is rather important, when one is
basing one's behavior on probabilities.
|5.22.07 @ 1:37PM|#
\"No similar statement can be made about black people and
violent crime. Nothing remotely close to 50% of black males are
looking to mug you. It\'s probably more like 1%, or less.\"
I agree with you Joe. It is a very select minority. It is probably
also a very select minority of muslims that want to kill all
westeners and hate western culture.
I think Paul in this case was speaking to the general perception,
in so much as he actually wrote it. It seems like it might be a
generally accurate description of his view, at least at the
time.
Also, I don\'t know the exact statistics, but that minority is
probably significant enough in the black community as a whole to
warrant concern. We often hear black community leaders express
dismay over the disproportionate amount of blacks in prisons
compared to their number among the general population.
It\'s a minority, and I think it\'s slowly getting better. I think
we\'ve just barely started on the road to a more true equality.
|5.22.07 @ 1:40PM|#
MP,
"If the numbers did show that there was a significant racial basis
for violent crime rates, would you agree that making decisions
about crime avoidance based on race is rational and not
racist?"
Yes, I would. But the data do not show that. They show that an
individual black man is very, very unlikely to be a violent
criminal, while an individual white man is very, very, very, very
unlucky to be a violent criminal.
|5.22.07 @ 1:42PM|#
I think arbitrarily raising a statistical figure by 10
percentage points based on pure speculation is ridiculous. Maybe we
just disagree on that, but I don't think that's the accepted norm
for dealing with stats.
If it was presented as the only figure, without explanation as to
why it was larger than the reported figure, that's one thing. But
both the underlying figure, and a rationalization for why it might
actually be higher than what was reported, were both presented. You
may or may not agree with the rationalization, but that doesn't
mean the rationalization is racist.
My primary point is that I don't understand why discussions
involving racially based statistics make the person presenting them
a racist.
|5.22.07 @ 1:45PM|#
But the data do not show that. They show that an individual
black man is very, very unlikely to be a violent criminal, while an
individual white man is very, very, very, very unlucky to be a
violent criminal.
Fine, then debate the numbers. I don't see why if someone looks at
either the wrong numbers, or in a fashion that's not really
justified, that it makes them a racist. It's entirely possible to
come to a rational conclusion based on poor numbers. It doesn't
make you irrational or a racist. It simply calls into question your
analysis skills.
|5.22.07 @ 1:48PM|#
\"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.\'\"
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205
Thanks Ray! I was looking for that quote.
So can we reasonably assume he did not say those words verbatim,
but perhaps in some general way, they reflect some of his
thoughts?
Or maybe it be more accurate to say they reflect what some campaign
aide thought Paul thought?
|5.22.07 @ 1:48PM|#
"If you see three black males in their 40s wearing suits on a
park bench across from a courthouse at lunch time, it makes no
sense whatsoever to behave any differently than if they were
white."
joe is right. I would be much less afraid if I saw Erkul in a dark
alley than Freddy Kruger, even though Erkul is black and Freddy
Kruger is white. Maybe that's an overexaggeration, but you get the
point.
|5.22.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Well, MP, if you've ever argued with statisticians, you know how
fleet of foot they can be.
You've seen that quote from Paul, right?
Yeah, maybe he's just a lousy analyst of statistics.
|5.22.07 @ 2:00PM|#
"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't
change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations."
- Ron Paul
"If this is a true statement, shouldn't his frothing supporters be
told that he is not an athiest? Well, maybe he did not mean the
above literally."
Ron Paul is a Christian, but you don't need to be a Christian in
order to have morals. I think that most atheists would agree that
bigotry is immoral.
|5.22.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Well, MP, if you've ever argued with statisticians, you know
how fleet of foot they can be.
Let's not get into a debate about the reasons for the proportion of
successful black athletes in track and field being what it is.
|5.22.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"Believe it or not, making sure white people have warm, fuzzy
feelings in their hearts is not the goal of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, or the Fair Housing Act."
But other rights are being viotated to enforce those acts such as
property rights.
|5.22.07 @ 2:04PM|#
For the record, I agree with some of the specific points in the
LA riots column. But those points could have been made without the
blanket condemnations of black Americans as terrorists, thugs,
barbarians, animals and criminals.
If Paul says he didn't write that column and disavows it, I'll take
his word. But why did he wait several years to disavow the piece?
Why not publically fire and disavow the ghostwriter, and clarify
his own views, when he first discovered the column falsely
published as Ron Paul's words in the Ron Paul Newsletter? This
strikes me as typical politican have-it-both-ways weaselry.
The passages quoted by PLS above are noble sentiments. Kudos to
whoever wrote them (since we obviously can't assume it was Ron
Paul, that would be totally unfair). I would just add that "in a
free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an
individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality"
should extend to treating others as individuals rather than
demonizing and dehumanizing whole groups.
handsofaten|5.22.07 @ 2:07PM|#
My primary point is that I don't understand why discussions
involving racially based statistics make the person presenting them
a racist.
I don't think they do. But in this case, whoever wrote the
newsletter presented the statistic (which was probably
cherry-picked for shock value in the first place), and then raised
it to make it even more shocking. The reason for raising it from
85% to 95% seems unreasonable to me, and there was no evidence
given to justify the speculative statistic. So, no, I don't think
that discussing public policy in terms of stats that deal with race
makes someone a racist. But I don't think this particular
newsletter demonstrates much dispassionate analysis of statistical
facts.
|5.22.07 @ 2:17PM|#
"Since Paul has said he didn't write it, it comes down to
whether you believe him or not."
Well, most scholars don't believe Paul wrote "Hebrews", "Timothy",
and "Titus".
Oh, you weren't talking about that Paul?
|5.22.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake,
"But other rights are being viotated to enforce those acts such as
property rights."
Now that's a legitimate argument - not one I agree with, but it's
something worth thinking about.
"You can't change people's hearts with legislation" isn't. I don't
care if the cracker-assed lunch counter owners have shiney happy
feelings about black people. I care about black people being
allowed to live like equal citizens in our society, including being
able to walk into the only diner in their town and get a sammich
like everyone else.
|5.22.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Some of the racist quotes above don't sound like anything I've ever read of Ron Paul's, but they do sound similar to things I've read from Lewelan Rockwell.
|5.22.07 @ 2:44PM|#
joe:
It's probably "the only diner in town" because of municipal
planning officials and/or the politicians who hire them. I'm sure
you are well aware of the disparate impact on the poor and
minorities of zoning.
Kevin
|5.22.07 @ 2:44PM|#
"I care about black people being allowed to live like equal
citizens in our society, including being able to walk into the only
diner in their town and get a sammich like everyone else."
So do I, but is it right to coerce morals?
|5.22.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Sammiches are NOT racist!
Sammiches are universal, and spread their joy to all, regardless of
race, background, or creed.
Someday, the children of slaves and the children of slaveowners
will sit down together, and each sammiches.
(Can anyone tell that I had a light lunch?)
|5.22.07 @ 2:47PM|#
"It's probably "the only diner in town" because of municipal
planning officials and/or the politicians who hire them. I'm sure
you are well aware of the disparate impact on the poor and
minorities of zoning."
Plus expensive licensing requirements that hurt the poor.
|5.22.07 @ 2:48PM|#
kevrob,
As much as you might like to believe it, no, the limited number of
establishments in small towns in the South had nothing to do with
zoning.
Why, if you read a history book once in a while, you will learn
that segregation, and the absence of businesses that will serve
black people, actually predate the existence of zoning, by several
decades. Why, you might even learn that most small Southern towns
had no zoning ordinances in the 1950s and 60s!
|5.22.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Joe:
\"...Now that\'s a legitimate argument - not one I agree with,
but it\'s something worth thinking about.\"
\"You can\'t change people\'s hearts with legislation\"
isn\'t.
I think you missed my incredibly insightful comment(even I\'m
shocked) above:
\"I would even argue that these laws and acts have helped to give
blacks the false idea that racism has been eliminated simply
because there are laws against it; thus causing an earth-shaking
fall to earth(redundancy ftw) when they see it\'s not true.\"
Much like laws banning guns(or drugs) don\'t actually get rid of
guns(or drugs), laws outlawing racism don\'t get rid of racism, per
se.
If a (racist)person doesn\'t have a \'nice, fuzzy attitude\' about
serving a black man, he\'s still not gonna have a nice, fuzzy
attitude even if he\'s forced to serve him.
I\'m glad those laws exist even though it\'s sad they have to.
It\'s good state-sanctioned racism is gone. But it still does not
get rid of the attitudes that caused it.
|5.22.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Um, um, income taxes?
Aid for the poor?
Social Security?
Dammit, I know I can think up some plausible-sounding reason to
blame segregation in the South in the early 20th century on someone
besides Southern racists!
|5.22.07 @ 2:56PM|#
PLS,
Let me put your mind at ease. There are many things we have to
worry about in this crazy, upside down world we live in.
That black people falsely believe racism has been eliminated,
however, is not among them.
Racist attitudes have plummeted in this country over the past five
decades. At the time the Loving v. Virginia ruling came down, 2/3
of Americans thought mixed-race marriages were immoral. During
Martin Luther King's lifetime, most white Americans did not want
black people to live next door to them.
Obviously, those attitudes are going the way of the dinosaur - and
have done so during the period that the "laws and regulations" have
been in effect. If these laws are getting in the way of our society
spurning racism, you wouldn't know it from the direction of public
opinion.
Fluffy|5.22.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Daze -
I don't think the newsletter was a campaign publication. I was
under the impression it was one of those [pre-blog-era] fishwrap
sheets that got Samizdated around, and that a few guys were using
Ron Paul's name to try to get more people on to their mailing list.
You know, the way Len Peikoff runs around stamping Rand's name on
stuff to increase its marketability.
But I may be wrong about this. The newsletter is before my
time.
Fluffy|5.22.07 @ 3:05PM|#
Since the thread is morphing into a discussion on the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, here is my take:
I do not recognize the administrative distinction between private
property and a public accomodation. Therefore, if it's no business
of mine who Joe lets into his house, or his church, it's also no
business of mine who he lets into his restaurant or bar. Some
people may in fact not allow a black person on to their property -
and some people may not allow ME on to their property. I don't
think this should be litigable.
With regard to employment, I also don't consider justified any law
which draws a distinction between buying labor and buying a good or
service. Since no one can bring suit against you for the "disparate
impact" of your orange juice purchases or your office supply
purchases, they should not be able to bring suit against you for
the impact of your labor purchases. Many people counter to this
that there's something unique about purchasing labor, but it
strikes me that I am also purchasing labor when I go to a doctor, a
lawyer, or an accountant, and no one gets to look over my shoulder
and judge the validity of my purchases in those areas, so why
should W-2 labor have a priveleged place?
But I guess I'm just an asshole.
|5.22.07 @ 3:07PM|#
\"If these laws are getting in the way of our society spurning
racism, you wouldn\'t know it from the direction of public
opinion.\"
I\'m not saying that either.
Some of those laws worked by forcing and black white to trade and
associate together in business and education. This association,
forced at first in some cases, helped black and white individuals
to get to know eachother and so break down racial barriers by
realizing the other was just like them.
It was the freedom to trade and associate together that caused
this.
Also, when some laws allowed blacks to move into white
neighborhoods, many whites and white business, still clinging to
their racial hysteria, abandoned these neighborhoods; essentially
ghetto-izing blacks and leaving them in comparitive poverty by
continuing to deny them opportunity and acceptance. This, despite
the laws.
|5.22.07 @ 3:20PM|#
And please don\'t think that I think the laws were a bad idea.
I\'m very glad many of those laws exist.
But the law helps by allowing interaction; or more accurately said:
prohibiting discrimination, i.e forced or coerced
non-interaction.
It is the interaction among races that helps eliminate racism, not
the law.
Laws only help facilitate such interaction. And to the degree they
succeed in doing so, they succeed in helping to eliminate
racism.
|5.22.07 @ 3:25PM|#
That he's willing to shut down the Israel lobby and cut off Israel handouts is a stronger reason to vote for him, not less.
|5.22.07 @ 3:27PM|#
"So should we nuke every country to the stone ages and keep them
there so they will never have the capability of attacking
us?"
"Nope, but thanks for the extra hysteria. Now, when you get out of
grade school mode I might start paying attention to you
again."
I thought my point was very relevant. How do we know Iran will
attack us if they get nukes? Wouldn't they be afraid we would
retaliate? I don't think we have anything to worry with concerning
them unless we continue to push them with our meddling foreign
policy. Then they would give their nukes to international
terrorists that couldn't be tracked down to them.
|5.22.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Laws only help facilitate such interaction. And to the
degree they succeed in doing so, they succeed in helping to
eliminate racism.
I agree with that whole post PLS, but I'd put up one counterexample
for consideration. The laws would help eliminate racism more
quickly except a situation like...
your child now has to be bussed to a different/worse school
district where their friends are not and all that business all in
the name of racial integration.
I doubt in those situations that the laws are going to really make
people rethink their racism because they're so grateful to meet the
new people.
But then again, I'm not exactly a proponent of public schools, so
in my preferred world, that point would be moot.
|5.22.07 @ 4:22PM|#
If stating the Israel should take of Israel without a lot of interference from the US - and that the US should take care of the US without a lot of interference from Israel is anti-semitic - then the term has lost all value.
|5.22.07 @ 4:33PM|#
What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about
9/11 before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?
There's very strong evidence for that, but it's not a reason to
harbor animosity toward Israelis in general-just the Israeli
government. And governments do horrible things with depressing
regularity.
|5.22.07 @ 4:37PM|#
\"I doubt in those situations that the laws are going to really
make people rethink their racism because they\'re so grateful to
meet the new people.\"
Right, exactly. And here we get to the limitaions of the law, and
what it can do.
I should of qualified my statements a bit more by saying that
interaction, some facilitated by laws, over time and
through prolonged periods of interaction help to slowly break down
racial barriers. In fact, this is probably only partially true if
at all, because simple proximity is not interaction. (e.g. you may
have tons of black kids that attend your school and never interact
with them.)
Thus, the law cannot adress voluntary segregation, esp. voluntary
cultural segegration. Blacks and whites in this country have
evolved along completely different cultural paths, with different
tastes in music, different outlooks, different manners of
speaking.
I think it\'s the cultural common ground that has helped bring more
blacks and whites together, more than any law has. Music, dance
food, common hardship. Music in particular.
It\'s funny how when music, particularly jazz, was helping to bring
black and white together, the music started changing to more polar
sub-genres, like hip-hop and hard-rock/heavy metal, both offshoots
of jazz/blues.
|5.22.07 @ 4:52PM|#
What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about
9/11 before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?
Hell, we knew about 9/11 beforehand, in a very fragmentary
way, and managed not to warn ourselves.
Anyway, why should the Israelis risk burning their sources by
disclosing to a US intelligence apparatus with terrible security
practices and pockets of anti-Israeli sentiment?
|5.22.07 @ 5:49PM|#
joe continued to imagine things...
West Medford, Massachusetts.
Medford is only 6% black.
Virtually all of Prince George's Country, Maryland.
"Prince George's, with a population of 850,000, had a [murder] rate
of 20 per 100,000, and Fairfax had a rate of 2 per 100,000."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010101049.html
A crime rate 10x higher than the neighboring county is considered
"low" in joelandia.
Though your difficulty believing that statement is
noted.
I was correct to disbelieve your statements since they were
false.
|5.22.07 @ 6:38PM|#
Mr Lemur,
Medford isn't a neighborhood; Medford is a city. West Medford is a
neighborhood. As a matter of fact, it is the oldest middle class
black neighborhood in America.
Nor is Prince George's County a neighborhood. Prince George's
County is, as some might have been able to figure out on their own,
a county. It contains towns and cities, which contain
neighborhoods. Which is why those little words "virtually all of"
appeared in that statement. Yes, there are pockets of crime in PGC,
such as in Cheverly. There are also very nice, very safe
neighborhoods - far more of them, as a matter of fact.
Are your language and geographical skills really this poor, or is
the lure of "proving" that black people are inferior overcoming
your critical reasoning skills?
|5.22.07 @ 7:38PM|#
I seem to remember the newsletter in question was some sort of
business venture between Paul, Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert. I
think all were involved for it (hence the reason Blumert, a coin
dealer, is suddenly called an expert on race, crime and communism
in the midst of the article in question.) Blumert is still working
closely with Rockwell and his site.
Ron says quite clearly he did not write it. I would like to see him
say who did write it! It wasn't his, but was put out under his
name, so yes he does take responsibility. But there is no reason
that he shouldn't say who it was who actually authored that piece.
Gee, I think it's getting a bit warm down in Auburn right now.
Gene Berkman|5.22.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Since nobody will read a comment this far down, I think it is
safe to say that Ron Paul's newsletter was mostly written by Lew
Rockwell. In the past, Lew has sometimes displayed racist attitudes
about blacks, including an LA Times column defending the beating of
Rodney King.
Since Bush took office, Lew has become very anti-Republican (except
for supporting Ron Paul) and he has written very favorably of
Blacks for their overwhelming opposition to Bush, the Republican
Party and the Iraq War.
Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he is too friendly with too many
people.
|5.22.07 @ 8:19PM|#
"Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he is too friendly with too
many people."
He values ideas and free thinking, so you aren't going to see very
many times where he's going to try to shut some one up.
I read the transcript of that meet-up that the Truthers attended.
The meet-up wasn't hosted by the Truthers but they wanted to attend
and talk to Paul.
Ron Paul answered their questions politely and honestly. I don't
think it's his job to play like Rudy Guiliani and demand they have
no right to think a certain way.
|5.22.07 @ 8:35PM|#
Anyone who's read anything of Ron Paul's can tell that those
comments are not his. He has said that racism is a "collectivist
mindset" and the language just isn't the same as his.
Did a mentally retarded man ever get shot 90 times under Ron Paul's
watch?
Interesting comments about the writer possibly being Lew
Rockwell.
|5.22.07 @ 8:49PM|#
"Ron Paul votes against raising Congressional Pay"
"RON PAUL IS AGAINST HIMSELF"
|5.22.07 @ 9:21PM|#
\"Ron Paul votes against raising Congressional Pay\"
\"RON PAUL IS AGAINST HIMSELF\"
PLS: Congressman Paul, how do you respond to charges that you
conspire against yourself, that you are part of a conspiracy
against yourself?
Ron Paul: Well, I don\'t think there\'s any evidence of that, that
I\'ve seen, to make me believe that. However, I would support
further investigation.
PLS: You\'d investigate yourself, sir?
Ron Paul: Well, there may have been some cover-ups, it\' possible.
But I really can\'t make a determination at this point; and so yes,
I would continue with more investigations.
PLS: Thank you.
|5.22.07 @ 11:32PM|#
That 'meet-up' was my fundraiser that I organized singlehandedly
and was held at a swanky private home of a friend, thank you very
much and a bunch of students who had not even RVSPd showed up and
wanted to meet Ron. They were polite and respectful so I let them
in.
The notion that Ron is a 911-conspiracy theorist is just NONSENSE
spun by dimwits on TV who are scared of his popularity. I was
standing next to him when that video was taken, in fact FOX used it
without my permission and will be taken to task for that.
Anyway, that was no 'meet-up' and definitely was not a 'meeting'
with truthers or any other group. It was RSVPd by 182 Democrats,
Republicans, Independents and Libertarians of all ages who have
unwaivering committment to voting for Ron. Ron's support is strong.
There is no either or. It's Ron or nothing.
ND|5.23.07 @ 1:28AM|#
This explains the racist nonsense that is getting spewed
here...
www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
|5.23.07 @ 4:53AM|#
Everything is antisemitism. Being against Jewish supremacism and apartheid is antisemitism. The only kind of racism that Jewish supremacists support is the anti-muslim variety.
|5.23.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Mr.Berkman says he believes that Lew Rockwell wrote the comments for which Paul is being crucified. Of course it is my suspicion as well but I still think Paul needs to say who wrote it. Of course Rockwell has been cozy with racists far too often for my liking. Sam Francis was a vile racist and had Rockwell's support. And now Hans Hoppe, the big guru for the Rockwellians is holding his conference with where he has speakers going on about the racial causes of intelligence (they basically say blacks are genetically predisposed to being stupid) kicking off his "alternative" group to the Mont Pelerin Society. These are men who write for and work with open Nazis. There is a cesspool in Auburn that libertarians are trying to pretend doesn't exist.
Chucklehead|5.23.07 @ 10:14AM|#
This explains the racist nonsense that is getting spewed
here...
This will not matter to people who've already convinced themselves
that Paul is a racist. Like joe. The fact that Paul is a republican
from Texas was probably enough for most lefty types to write him
off anyway.
|5.23.07 @ 10:32AM|#
This will not matter to people who've already convinced
themselves that Paul is a racist. Like joe. The fact that Paul is a
republican from Texas was probably enough for most lefty types to
write him off anyway.
Im about as far as it gets from being a lefty type, but to me the
two statements. AIPAC/Israel being the most EVIL lobby groups, and
blacks destroying the country, are flat out racist. If Paul didnt
write those statements, then so be it. But if you read this thread
from the beginning (yes i know its long), you will see that the
same people who are now defending Paul by attributing the quotes to
someone else, are the same people who at the beginning were
defending him by saying that neither of those quotes were NOT
racist.
If Paul didnt write those quotes, he still looks bad based on the
company he keeps and the ideas that he lets his name get attached
too. But then public image/speaking seems to be a severe weakeness
of the Paul capaign.
|5.23.07 @ 10:44AM|#
But the premise that you have to wait until they can attack
us, or our allies (beyond the one they are attacking right now) is
bizarre.
So Bertrand Russell was right, and we *should* have conducted a
pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union in the late 40s (or
against China in the late 60s, the way Brezhnev was urging Nixon to
do). Because letting them build up their nuclear arsenals to the
point where they could attack us or our allies was "bizarre." (Or
perhaps you can explain how Mao Zedong was any less batshit crazy
than Ahmeddinnahknowhowtosayhisname in Iran.)
|5.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#
"Mr.Berkman says he believes that Lew Rockwell wrote the
comments for which Paul is being crucified. Of course it is my
suspicion as well but I still think Paul needs to say who wrote it.
Of course Rockwell has been cozy with racists far too often for my
liking. Sam Francis was a vile racist and had Rockwell's support.
And now Hans Hoppe, the big guru for the Rockwellians is holding
his conference with where he has speakers going on about the racial
causes of intelligence (they basically say blacks are genetically
predisposed to being stupid) kicking off his "alternative" group to
the Mont Pelerin Society. These are men who write for and work with
open Nazis. There is a cesspool in Auburn that libertarians are
trying to pretend doesn't exist."
I subscribed to the "Rothbard-Rockwell Report" back during Desert
Storm because of their opposition to it. I let the subscription run
out after the war was over and after getting sick of reading
Rockwell's racist writings.
|5.23.07 @ 11:42AM|#
"Hell, we knew about 9/11 beforehand, in a very fragmentary way,
and managed not to warn ourselves."
"Anyway, why should the Israelis risk burning their sources by
disclosing to a US intelligence apparatus with terrible security
practices and pockets of anti-Israeli sentiment?"
Along with that information that Israeli intelligence knew of 9/11
before it happened were reports of Israelis in this country
cheering as the towers came down.
|5.23.07 @ 11:49AM|#
"What if it's proven that Israeli intelligence knew about 9/11
before hand, but didn't do anything to warn us?"
"There's very strong evidence for that, but it's not a reason to
harbor animosity toward Israelis in general-just the Israeli
government. And governments do horrible things with depressing
regularity."
My only argument is with the Israeli government and our support of
it. We should be neutral. I have nothing against the Jewish people.
In fact, my mother tells me that I'm part Jewish.
Tom Walls|5.23.07 @ 4:37PM|#
There is quite a bit of kvetsching in the various RP discussion
groups about whom people would like to see as RP's VP pick.
Walter Williams or Murray Sabrin would be excellent running mates
for RP.
Williams often goes by his last name and Ron Paul has two first
names, so they would complement each other well.
Tom Walls|5.23.07 @ 8:52PM|#
I neglected to mention another favorite of mine, New Mex. Gov. Gary Johnson.
|5.24.07 @ 12:10AM|#
Sager's article is ridiculous. Everyone knows it including
him.
If I point out that the MPAA has a powerful lobby, does that mean I
am anti-movies? That would be too bad since I was planning to go to
the theatre this weekend.
|5.24.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Chucklehead,
"This will not matter to people who've already convinced themselves
that Paul is a racist. Like joe."
Actually, the "Lew Rockwell wrote it" excuse sounds very plausible
to me. I find the words to be quite racist, but I have no trouble
believing that they were not Paul's own.
|5.26.07 @ 4:54AM|#
Exactly what evidence does anyone have that the Mises Institute
and Rockwell are racist?
Is this 1973 again? Are you people working for Zombie Walter
Duranty? These tactics are Bill-Maher driving-in-a-hybrid-with-Mao
leftist.
|5.26.07 @ 2:56PM|#
If Ryan Sager is truly characterizing Ron Paul's statement about
the power of Israeli Lobby as anti-semitic then Ryan Sager is truly
an ass-hat.
The anti-semitic crap is a term that is bandied about way too
often. I really don't give a rat's ass about the state of Israel,
so I guess I am anti-semitic as well. O.o
Seriously, I don't want my government in bed with any country,
especially when the only thing we get out of the relationship is a
bullseye from all the disenfranchised, dispossessed and angry Arab
populations.
Opposing Israeli influence concerning our nation's foreign policy
position does not equate to being a Holocaust lover.
I would hope that could go without saying.
Reason, my ass.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245