Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

[Napoleon Ier]

No... just resting on my laurels until you come up with something vaguely coherent in response.

To what?

" i iz teh right so admit it couz i iz teh best dancing retard !"

I've explained already that he is reffering to the black rioters as having ethnic motivations, you disagree, or don't : either wy, it's not racist.

[Snorri1234]

Failiure.

Failiure?

Don't you mean, Failure?

Failiure.

I win

I win.

[Norse]

Winning doesn't get any easier than this for me.

[Dancing Mustard]

I've explained already that he is reffering to the black rioters as having ethnic motivations ... it's not racist.

*Sigh*

The problem with that statement is that it isn't actually true.

He's not making a general statement about the motivations of black rioters, he's explicitly stating that they "are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible".

That's not only not true, but it is also racist.

Apparently you don't get that concept, and/or are just determined to ignore it and believe some fantastical made-up interpretation of what he's saying. You haven't done anything to actually rebut the point I'm making, but you have spent a great deal of time making up improbable justifications for what Ronny meant.

When you have something logical to say that actually rebuts my point (i.e. if you learn to debate) then I'll come back and demolish you again; until then I will leave you to have your ineffectual and hollow last word.

Goodnight.

[Snorri1234]

Winning doesn't get any easier than this for me.

It's still spelled "Failure" though.

[Serbia]

Cool, my thread has 11 pages.

[unriggable]

Cool, my thread has 11 pages.

So does my cock.

[Napoleon Ier]

I've explained already that he is reffering to the black rioters as having ethnic motivations ... it's not racist.

*Sigh*

The problem with that statement is that it isn't actually true.

He's not making a general statement about the motivations of black rioters, he's explicitly stating that they "are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible".

That's not only not true, but it is also racist.

Apparently you don't get that concept, and/or are just determined to ignore it and believe some fantastical made-up interpretation of what he's saying. You haven't done anything to actually rebut the point I'm making, but you have spent a great deal of time making up improbable justifications for what Ronny meant.

When you have something logical to say that actually rebuts my point (i.e. if you learn to debate) then I'll come back and demolish you again; until then I will leave you to have your ineffectual and hollow last word.

Goodnight.

The problem is more serious than I thought. Would you like to find me the predicate of that sentence written by someone pretending to be Paul? Because it is indeed he subject of the sentence you conveniently failed to quote that is being refered to. And unless that subject is "all negroes", your accusation is nothing more than calumnious speculation.This isn't even my own language and I understand its syntax better than you do.

[Norse]

Winning doesn't get any easier than this for me.

It's still spelled "Failure" though.

Sure.

Consider that a bonus point.

[Snorri1234]

The problem is more serious than I thought. Would you like to find me the predicate of that sentence written by someone pretending to be Paul? Because it is indeed he subject of the sentence you conveniently failed to quote that is being refered to.

I already quoted the full sentence, Napsy.

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

And unless that subject is "all negroes", your accusation is nothing more than calumnious speculation.This isn't even my own language and I understand its syntax better than you do.

It doesn't have to be "all negroes". In the sentence it's referring to all black criminals. (The notion that the white criminals could also be trained to hate whites is frankly ridiculous, so don't go talking about that.)

[Norse]

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

QFT!

I'm beginning to like you, snorring.

[suggs]

This thread should be stuffed into the Jesus freaks one.
an entire thread devoted to someone who's got NO CHANCE at all of winning the election.
So er i thought i'd give it a bump.
Poor Ron Paul-he probably thinks there is a point to his existence.
Whereas, of course, he's about as important as an ash tray on a motorbike, or a Suggs on political thread.
To clarify-let this be the end of this thread.
Unless i decide to be even more paradoxical and up me own arse than normal.
God Bless America.

[Napoleon Ier]

Then he's reffering to a root motivation of negro criminals.

Who would deny that the KKK's crimes were ethnically motivated?

Similarily I find it plausible that the black criminals in this instance were ethnically driven. By all means, disagree, but don't call him racist. Furthermore, he didn't even write this. Have you heard Paul speak? He couldn't hurt a fly....

[Snorri1234]

Then he's reffering to a root motivation of negro criminals.

Who would deny that the KKK's crimes were ethnically motivated?

Similarily I find it plausible that the black criminals in this instance were ethnically driven. By all means, disagree, but don't call him racist.

Well either he is a complete and utter idiot, or he's racist.
Maybe there are some criminals who are trying to stick it to the white man, but that sentence just denies every other motivation that criminals could possibly have.

Furthermore, he didn't even write this. Have you heard Paul speak? He couldn't hurt a fly....

This thread has moved away from the debate about whether Mr. Paul said it and into debating whether it's racist.

[Napoleon Ier]

Then he's reffering to a root motivation of negro criminals.

Who would deny that the KKK's crimes were ethnically motivated?

Similarily I find it plausible that the black criminals in this instance were ethnically driven. By all means, disagree, but don't call him racist.

Well either he is a complete and utter idiot, or he's racist.
Maybe there are some criminals who are trying to stick it to the white man, but that sentence just denies every other motivation that criminals could possibly have.

No. He (whoever it is) makes an entirely valid comment, if unevidenced in the actual article, about the ethnic motivations of the ethnic rioters.
If you say "Klansmen were ethnically driven", in no way do youdeny he oher causes, such as desire to fit into a group, desire for a sense of adventure in an obscure, esoteric, secretive organization, or lackof education.

[Snorri1234]

No. He (whoever it is) makes an entirely valid comment, if unevidenced in the actual article, about the ethnic motivations of the ethnic rioters.

He is not referring to the rioters specifically. He's referring to all black criminals.

If you say "Klansmen were ethnically driven", in no way do youdeny he oher causes, such as desire to fit into a group, desire for a sense of adventure in an obscure, esoteric, secretive organization, or lackof education.

Yes, but if you for example said that that burglar who is robbing your house has ethnic motivations, you're just an arse. And your just downright racist if you say that all black criminals have ethnic motivations.

And that's what this guy is saying! And not only that, he is making a sweeping generalization saying that all black criminals are criminals because they hate whites, not merely the rioters. And that their parents and friends and people they know are also racists! Trained as kids to hate whites? Who is training these kids other than the rest of the community?

"The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

I mean, wtf? Can't you see the racism in this?

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes, but if you for example said that that burglar who is robbing your house has ethnic motivations, you're just an arse. And your just downright racist if you say that all black criminals have ethnic motivations.

Is that what he's saying? No. He's saying those riots were ethnically driven, which they were. Do you even know what the LA riots were? They were about exactly that, blacks feeling oppressed.

He's just saying that the rioters had ethnic motivations. If you then want to go nit-picking throught this so you ca triumphantly point an accusatry finger at an evil racist so you feel less of the masochistic guilt fed to you by MSMs tha's your problem, but it doesn't make this guy racist.

He's telling it like it is : a large portion of those people did have a seething hatred of whites resulting from a feeling of injustice and oppression, so they rioted.

[Snorri1234]

Is that what he's saying? No. He's saying those riots were ethnically driven, which they were.

No HE ISN'T SAYING THAT! Do you lack the most basic reading comprehension in the entire world?
I'm gonna quote it one more time for you:


The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--.
Well, I don't know about you, but I think it's pretty clear he's speaking about all criminals. Or are you saying that he's only referring to the riots when he's saying he's not?

Do you even know what the LA riots were? They were about exactly that, blacks feeling oppressed.

Yes dipshit, but HE IS NOT ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THAT.

He's telling it like it is : a large portion of those people did have a seething hatred of whites resulting from a feeling of injustice and oppression, so they rioted.

See if that is what he meant, WHY THE HELL DID HE TALK ABOUT NON-RIOT DAYS!

[Snorri1234]

[Napoleon Ier]

Seriously, find me the one place where he says that any race is lower than another. He doesn't? I thought not. Looks like snorring once again started spreading a calumnious, alarmist message to veil the fact he has no concrete evidence for his ridiculous cactus-smoker's views....

[Snorri1234]

Seriously, find me the one place where he says that any race is lower than another. He doesn't?

Does he have to say that to be racist? A big fat no.

I thought not. Looks like snorring once again started spreading a calumnious, alarmist message to veil the fact he has no concrete evidence for his ridiculous cactus-smoker's views....

Why don't you go f*ck yourself. And then explain to me how those sentences aren't racist. You fail so much to actually read what is stated, that it's not even funny anymore.

[heavycola]

Seriously, find me the one place where he says that any race is lower than another. He doesn't? I thought not. Looks like snorring once again started spreading a calumnious, alarmist message to veil the fact he has no concrete evidence for his ridiculous cactus-smoker's views....

Stop trying to move the goalposts. You were wrong. End of.

[Napoleon Ier]

Is that what he's saying? No. He's saying those riots were ethnically driven, which they were.

No HE ISN'T SAYING THAT! Do you lack the most basic reading comprehension in the entire world?
I'm gonna quote it one more time for you:


The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--.
Well, I don't know about you, but I think it's pretty clear he's speaking about all criminals. Or are you saying that he's only referring to the riots when he's saying he's not?

Do you even know what the LA riots were? They were about exactly that, blacks feeling oppressed.

Yes dipshit, but HE IS NOT ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THAT.

He's telling it like it is : a large portion of those people did have a seething hatred of whites resulting from a feeling of injustice and oppression, so they rioted.

See if that is what he meant, WHY THE HELL DID HE TALK ABOUT NON-RIOT DAYS!

OMFG!!! He actually suggested these people (explicitly reffered to as the rioters) commit criminal acts outside of the riots as well!! teh racizm!!!itz leik evriwer!!

Seriously, stop inventing racists where there are none and find a real hobby. You're the kind of people who called McCain racist for calling NVA gooks.

[heavycola]

Is that what he's saying? No. He's saying those riots were ethnically driven, which they were.

No HE ISN'T SAYING THAT! Do you lack the most basic reading comprehension in the entire world?
I'm gonna quote it one more time for you:


The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--.
Well, I don't know about you, but I think it's pretty clear he's speaking about all criminals. Or are you saying that he's only referring to the riots when he's saying he's not?

Do you even know what the LA riots were? They were about exactly that, blacks feeling oppressed.

Yes dipshit, but HE IS NOT ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THAT.

He's telling it like it is : a large portion of those people did have a seething hatred of whites resulting from a feeling of injustice and oppression, so they rioted.

See if that is what he meant, WHY THE HELL DID HE TALK ABOUT NON-RIOT DAYS!

OMFG!!! He actually suggested these people (explicitly reffered to as the rioters) commit criminal acts outside of the riots as well!! teh racizm!!!itz leik evriwer!!

Seriously, stop inventing racists where there are none and find a real hobby. You're the kind of people who called McCain racist for calling NVA gooks.

Stop generalising, it just makes you look stupid.

Why are you so keen to absolve a plainly racist author of racism anyway?

[got tonkaed]

napoleon...this thread (especially the last few pages) is becoming a shining example of how you are rapidly falling apart across this forum in the past few weeks (the germany france thread is another reasonable example).

Seeing as how this is the internet, you can be anything you want. However, most of the people around here try to argue their point from a variety of angles (sometimes until they are blue in the face). You however, have developed some desperate need to win all the time. Not necessarily to prove that your way of thinking is right, but just to win an argument.

Im not sure why this is, maybe its because your worried that now that people think your a kid people wont listen. Maybe its because after a while you felt you werent getting the respect for you stances you felt you deserved. Whatever the reason, these underhanded (at least for the circumstances) things your doing to try and win arguments, by hopping back and forth between semantics and a stance are pretty pathetic. Not only are you beginning to prove that you dont have much of a base for the things that you do think (at least of your own invention), you are increasingly losing any bit of credibilty that you may have once had in your effort to win internet arguments to the point of absurdity.

Stop trying to becoming a lost cause. It is rather embarrising to the point that by in large you arent worth anyones time on some of these issues. I could careless if you have a bunch of opinions and stances that are different in many ways from some of the people around here. But you have gotten to the point where its not even worth discussing those things with you, and its frankly you are becoming rather useless (as much as someone can be in an internet forum) and its only getting worse.

Maybe you need to sit a few plays out.