Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

[Snorri1234]

This isn't true and you know it. This is just unfair to the writer : you have claimed that because it says the criminals are racist, it implies all their families are racist. That doesn't mean it is saying all blacks are racist, far less inferior to Whites in any way.

Well....no it doesn't.
But it's still negatively generalizing a large portion of an ethnic group.

It's like saying that not all blacks are inferior, because you know perfectly normal black people.

[Napoleon Ier]

It's like saying that not all blacks are inferior, because you know perfectly normal black people.

The above seems to be a pefectly sensible comment to me.

The comment falsely attributed to Dr. Paul, contains, at best, traces of latent racism at a politically charged atmosphere of the 90s. Not the political bombshell I was expecting.

[Snorri1234]

It's like saying that not all blacks are inferior, because you know perfectly normal black people.

The above seems to be a pefectly sensible comment to me.

It isn't, as it implies most of them are.

The comment falsely attributed to Dr. Paul, contains, at best, traces of latent racism at a politically charged atmosphere of the 90s. Not the political bombshell I was expecting.

Well duh it isn't the most racist comment I've ever seen. But it is racist.

[Napoleon Ier]

It's like saying that not all blacks are inferior, because you know perfectly normal black people.

The above seems to be a pefectly sensible comment to me.

It isn't, as it implies most of them are.

What? Saying you know decent black folk to argue against racists is racist?

[Snorri1234]

It's like saying that not all blacks are inferior, because you know perfectly normal black people.

The above seems to be a pefectly sensible comment to me.

It isn't, as it implies most of them are.

What? Saying you know decent black folk to argue against racists is racist?

Huh? No, saying that most blacks are inferior, but there are some who are not, is racist.

[Napoleon Ier]

It isn't. Saying most black criminals hate whites, but not all, is not.

Saying that there is a tendancy for lower class blacks to be brought up hating whites is definitely not.

I have received no explanation as to how that quote can possibly be racist, yet people then tell me I have a tenuous position, that I'm falling apart and I'm arguing for the sake of winning. Damn right! I believe in Ron Paul's right to stand up to political correctness and to state that there was ethnic motivation for the riots, whether or not he said it anyway.

[Neutrino]

I skimmed though the thread but didn't find an adequate explanation as to the welfare quote.

That quote implies, quite strongly, that all the rioteers were on welfare. In all actuality, many of the people who participated in the riot would have been average people pissed off at the ruling (there is quite a large difference between the rioters, the looters and the extremists. The rioters marched, yelled and sometimes threw things, the looters broke windows and stole stuff and the extremists fired bullets at National Guardsmen. Big difference). According to Ron Paul, the average black person lives on the dole and, in fact, does nothing other than riot and pick up checks (if they did anything else that mattered to them as much as their welfare checks, then they would have stopped the riot for that instead).
These were average people. Not criminals. Not lazy. Not living on the dole. Yet according to your almighty self, Ron Paul can declare every single black person who participated in the riots to be a lazy goodfornothing slob and be entirely racism free.
Uh huh.

Yes, I know you're going to declare that I'm putting words into his mouth. However, I have noticed that lazyness is commonly assosiated with living on welfare by the more conservative members of this forum. I see no reason to make an exception for Ron Paul.

P.S. Did Ron Paul declare people who contributed to other riots to be "animals"?

[luns101]

Reminds me of the time Luns mastered sarcasm. Wonderful.

Ha! You remember that?!! Don't forget I saved at least 3 endangered gophers from Wal-Mart

Cool, my thread has 11 pages.

Which is probably 11 more than we would get if we started another hockey-related thread. How I wish that the Red Wings & Avalanche hated each other as much as in the old days.

[Napoleon Ier]

I skimmed though the thread but didn't find an adequate explanation as to the welfare quote.

That quote implies, quite strongly, that all the rioteers were on welfare. In all actuality, many of the people who participated in the riot would have been average people pissed off at the ruling. According to Ron Paul, the average black person lives on the dole and, in fact, does nothing other than riot and pick up checks (if they did anything else that mattered to them as much as their welfare checks, then they would have stopped the riot for that instead).
These were average people. Not criminals. Not lazy. Not living on the dole. Yet according to your almighty self, Ron Paul can declare every single black person who participated in the riots to be a lazy goodfornothing slob and be entirely racism free.
Uh huh.

Pure spin-doctoring. He said only that these ethnic rioters lived on welfare and that when they received their pay checks, suggesting not that blacks are lazy, but the rioters were. The fact the rioters were black is incidental.

P.S. Did Ron Paul declare people who contributed to other riots to be "animals"?

Yes, he called the 90s crime wave in its globality as the work of animals. Seeing as the USMC had to be deployed in response to the riots, I hardly think you can accuse people of having too strong words to chastise the scum behind those riots.

[Napoleon Ier]

Side note : ironic that this motley crew of leftists is resorting to Sean Hannity

[Snorri1234]

Side note : ironic that this motley crew of leftists is resorting to Sean Hannity

Who is Sean Hannity?

[luns101]

Who is Sean Hannity?

Fox News conservative commentator who sits opposite of liberal Alan Colmes on the debate show Hannity & Colmes

[Napoleon Ier]

Side note : ironic that this motley crew of leftists is resorting to Sean Hannity

Who is Sean Hannity?

The author of the article with the same title as this thread, and a widely reknowned anti-liberal (in the American sense) propagandist for Fox News.

*edit* propagandist....well, from the one time I ever watched Fox on holiday in America before my dad ordered me to turn off because it would "entrench me in my reptilian, redneck views".

[Neutrino]

Pure spin-doctoring. He said only that these ethnic rioters lived on welfare and that when they received their pay checks, suggesting not that blacks are lazy, but the rioters were. The fact the rioters were black is incidental.

Of course. The following comment where he emphasises the fact that the majority of the rioteers were black clearly illustrates how incidental he views this fact to be.

[Napoleon Ier]

Pure spin-doctoring. He said only that these ethnic rioters lived on welfare and that when they received their pay checks, suggesting not that blacks are lazy, but the rioters were. The fact the rioters were black is incidental.

Of course. The following comment where he emphasises the fact that the majority of the rioteers were black clearly illustrates how incidental he views this fact to be.

That's exactly right though. Do you really know much about the 92 LA riots?

The 1992 Los Angeles riots, also known as the Rodney King uprising, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a predominately white jury acquitted four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King when he resisted arrest following a high-speed car chase. Seeing the verdict as a metaphor for historic injustice against African-Americans in the United States, thousands of blacks in the Los Angeles area commenced to riot over six days, committing crimes including looting, assault, arson and murder. In all, 53 people died during the riots.[1]

[Neutrino]

That's exactly right though. Do you really know much about the 92 LA riots?

Congratulations on changing the subject so deftly. If I'd spontaneously gone blind I might have missed the fact you failed to actually respond properly to my statement.

The 1992 Los Angeles riots, also known as the Rodney King uprising, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a predominately white jury acquitted four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King when he resisted arrest following a high-speed car chase. Seeing the verdict as a metaphor for historic injustice against African-Americans in the United States, thousands of blacks in the Los Angeles area commenced to riot over six days, committing crimes including looting, assault, arson and murder. In all, 53 people died during the riots.[1]

I fail to see your point. I acknowledged this two posts ago. The part of that post you missed, obviously, was the part where I pointed out that the average rioteer would hav been walking and throwing things. If all, or even a majority, of the hundreds of thousands of people ("The number of participants in the uprising is well into the six-figure range" - http://libcom.org/history/1992-the-la-riots) who participated in the riot were looting, assaulting, arsoning and murdering, I seriously doubt there would have been a Los Angeles at the end of it.

[Napoleon Ier]

I fail to see your point. So what? They were black. They were animals. The two are not correlated. Neither Ron Paul nor the author of the thread correlates them but rather the upbringing they received.

[Neutrino]

Let's do this mathematically, eh, Napoleon?

Say it takes an hour to set fire to a building, including looting time. There was 6 days of rioting and Wikipedia says 3600 fires were set. Obviously people wouldn't have been setting fire to things all day, so lets give them a 6 hour fire-setting day. Each person can burn 6 buildings a day and 36 buildings over the entire period. Therefore, it would take a mere thousand people, a hundredth of the total rioting population to set fire to 3600 buildings in the time period provided.
Of course, I'm just choosing these numbers because they are convenient. Even increacing the number of people involved in arson-like activities during the riot by an order of magnitude, however, only incriminates one in ten people.

Whatever point you were trying to prove with your Wikipedia quote (presumably that most of the rioteers committed arson and assault) has been thoroughly disproved. 100 000+ arsonists is not possible considering the number of buildings burnt.

[Neutrino]

I fail to see your point. So what? They were black. They were animals. The two are not correlated. Neither Ron Paul nor the author of the thread correlates them but rather the upbringing they received.

Let me solve this confusion in an very Xtra-like fashion: with mindless repition.

Of course. The following comment where he emphasises the fact that the majority of the rioteers were black clearly illustrates how incidental he views this fact to be.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'll expound : he doesn't correlate black racial cxharacteristics and rioting rather their social circumstance. Many a leftist has done the same.

[Neutrino]

I'll expound : he doesn't correlate black racial cxharacteristics and rioting rather their social circumstance. Many a leftist has done the same.

You know, you should start a buisness. There are a lot of people who'll pay a nice premium for mind-reading abilities.
While it is simple for you to divine Ron Paul's innermost thoughts and intentions, the remainder of us pathetic hu-mans find this rather difficult. Generally, we tend to rely on quotes and evidence to support our arguments. Although it may be difficult for you to mentally stoop down to our level, in order for you to participate in this debate it is rather necessary.

Now: Please point me to the appropriate quote where Ron Paul correlates the rioters social circumstance to their tendency to riot, rather than, say, the very fact they are black, as seems to be indicated by the quotes Norse provided.

[bradleybadly]

I think you may want to spend a little of your time and actually get to know people with political opinions that differ from your own. You will be suprised that they are generally fully sentient individuals with their own reasoning for their beliefs.

All your little rant here succeeded in doing, quite efficiently I might add, is make you seem hypocritical at best (liberals have no idea what they're talking about) and downright moronic at worst. That goes for you too, Jay.

Oh like liberals go out of their way to get to know the people that they are taking money away from. Honestly I've got more respect for the common thief. At least they have the decency to take your money from you directly and are up front about it instead of hiding behind some idiot politician to do it for them.

I doubt a majority of you actually go out and create or produce anything which helps society. Instead you go to your little classrooms and throw out all your little theories on how you're so much better than those of us who actually work and are responsible enough to raise families. Then you congratulate each other about how f****ng wonderful you all are. You'll hardly ever actually go and meet with people in these victims groups you've concocted but you've got no problem saying that you understand them better than everyone else.

Go back to screwing your inflatable Hugo Chavez sex doll

[Neutrino]

Oh like liberals go out of their way to get to know the people that they are taking money away from. Honestly I've got more respect for the common thief. At least they have the decency to take your money from you directly and are up front about it instead of hiding behind some idiot politician to do it for them.

I doubt a majority of you actually go out and create or produce anything which helps society. Instead you go to your little classrooms and throw out all your little theories on how you're so much better than those of us who actually work and are responsible enough to raise families. Then you congratulate each other about how f****ng wonderful you all are. You'll hardly ever actually go and meet with people in these victims groups you've concocted but you've got no problem saying that you understand them better than everyone else.

Go back to screwing your inflatable Hugo Chavez sex doll

Uh huh.



Sir, your generalising abilities amaze me. I thought I could genralise, but then I come across someone of your magnificent talent and I realise that I've been fooling myself all my life. Your generalizations are as witty as they are accurate. The way you claim petty thieves are better than liberals... it... it brings a tear to my eye. You even know about the standard Chaves doll that's destributed to all new liberals! You, sir, are my hero.


If we split up and run, he'll only be able to kill and eat one of us...

[Snorri1234]

Oh like liberals go out of their way to get to know the people that they are taking money away from. Honestly I've got more respect for the common thief. At least they have the decency to take your money from you directly and are up front about it instead of hiding behind some idiot politician to do it for them.

I doubt a majority of you actually go out and create or produce anything which helps society. Instead you go to your little classrooms and throw out all your little theories on how you're so much better than those of us who actually work and are responsible enough to raise families. Then you congratulate each other about how f****ng wonderful you all are. You'll hardly ever actually go and meet with people in these victims groups you've concocted but you've got no problem saying that you understand them better than everyone else.

Go back to screwing your inflatable Hugo Chavez sex doll

Wtf?

[heavycola]

I think you may want to spend a little of your time and actually get to know people with political opinions that differ from your own. You will be suprised that they are generally fully sentient individuals with their own reasoning for their beliefs.

All your little rant here succeeded in doing, quite efficiently I might add, is make you seem hypocritical at best (liberals have no idea what they're talking about) and downright moronic at worst. That goes for you too, Jay.

Oh like liberals go out of their way to get to know the people that they are taking money away from. Honestly I've got more respect for the common thief. At least they have the decency to take your money from you directly and are up front about it instead of hiding behind some idiot politician to do it for them.

I doubt a majority of you actually go out and create or produce anything which helps society. Instead you go to your little classrooms and throw out all your little theories on how you're so much better than those of us who actually work and are responsible enough to raise families. Then you congratulate each other about how f****ng wonderful you all are. You'll hardly ever actually go and meet with people in these victims groups you've concocted but you've got no problem saying that you understand them better than everyone else.

Go back to screwing your inflatable Hugo Chavez sex doll

Why all the hatred, comrade? Were you abused by a liberal family member when you were a child?
You are obviously a victim. Give me a few minutes and I'll set up a support group. I can also help you with your benefit claims.
You poor, poor boy.