<p>Paul and former KKK member Senator Byrd of West Virginia need to form their own independent President and VP ticket. They are meant for each other.</p>
<p>The only reason far-right *[edited out] * don’t like him is because of his foreign policy positions. You guys love everything else but have moved so militaristic on foreign policy that that part is too much. </p>
<p>
Actually he’ll get along better with those two Republicans named Storm Thurmond and Jesse Helms. That kind of racism and homophobia is innate within the Repugs.</p>
<p>THE BEST OF JESSE HELMS (I wonder what old Lott will say at his funeral)</p>
<p>“In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.””</p>
<p>[This</a> “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism”](<a href=“http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca]This”>http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”</p>
<p>Ron Paul apparently fancies himself a sort of Paul Revere of the South. But what’s a little racism when the man is so much more?</p>
<p>No, actually conservatives including me don’t like Paul because he is racist. </p>
<p>UCLA, why are you defending Ron Paul? Do you think his “hide your head in the sand foreign policy” is sufficient to overlook is personal hatred of those who are not his race? Do you like this statement he made?
</p>
<p>You don’t see the problem with calling a certain race of people animals? Looks pretty bad to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Helms isn’t running for office or serving as an elected official. Pretty obvious.</p>
<p>[According</a> to Ron Paul](<a href=“ronpaul.com”>ronpaul.com), he did not write those words. But here’s the thing - do we want a president who would allow such things to be said in his name?</p>
<p>^^^^^
Absolutely right! They were in HIS newsletter. Those words are so outrageous, so incendiary, nobody who seriously disagreed with them would allow the world to think they tracked with his philosophy. This, along with Ron Paul’s backing by racist, radical organizations makes him someone to be totally disregarded in this election in my opinion.</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Whether he technically wrote them is quite obviously irrelevant, and that Ron Paul makes this “argument” shows how little respect he has for his supporters. Those words, and many others like them, were being published under Ron Paul’s name for decades, and he did nothing at all about them. Only after he had presidential aspirations did he remark about the words, and even then he only claimed he didn’t write them and that he takes “moral responsibility”. How does one take “moral responsibility” for something, unless one claims ignorance of a problem of which one should have been aware? That sort of inaction in the face of such hateful words demands a significant denouncement, that is unless Ron Paul agrees with them. Does he wish his supporters to think he was ignorant of them - and for so long? There is not even a shred of plausible deniability here. So I am persuaded Ron Paul thinks very little of his supporters, that he can so easily insult their intelligence.</p>
<p>What sort of president could allow such repeated atrocities to persist under his name and say nothing about it? What sort of president could so half-heartedly address something that thoroughly trashes his reputation? The answer is: a profoundly racist president of the Neo-Confederate, anti-semitic variety. Thinking people know quite well that none of the words in Ron Paul’s Newsletter were said against Ron Paul’s wishes.</p>
<p>Is there any indication of the <em>timing</em> of Mr. Paul’s recantation of what was said in “his” newsletters? Which is to say, were there immediate denunciations of what was published or did these statements come only once the newsletters were unearthed. Knowing that would tell me a lot about Candidate Paul.</p>
<p>He was there for a quite a long time , but noone in the far-right crowd of yours said a thing. This kind of racism is innate within the Republican Party anyway. Just read up on the Southern Strategy.</p>
<p>The racist comments were coming out in the newsletter from at least the year 1989 and persisted without negative response from Ron Paul until almost the year 2002. During his run for Congress in 1996, Paul’s opponent put the newsletter in the light, and yet Ron Paul STILL did not denounce them, since, with him wanting to represent Texas, such dencunciation would have been politically suicidal for him. The earliest time we know where Ron Paul addressed the comments was in a October 2001 article in Texas Monthly, obviously after his successful bid for Congress and obviously after developing political aspirations beyond merely representing the South.</p>
<p>Some interesting responses to the smear campaign from
[Ron</a> Paul Forum – Join The Revolution On The Ron Paul Forum](<a href=“ronpaulforum.com”>http://www.ronpaulforum.com/)</p>