There were a lot of black folk who professed a degree of admiration for George Wallace too.
We've all said some stupid, awful things in the past. If the racist sentiments went out under his name, whether he actually penned them or not, he's endorsed the sentiments. Sample quote: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
He claims he never read them? And he let them be published under his name? Was he being duped or did he just not care?
This wasn't a one-time occurrence - it was an ongoing thing.
The point (for me anyway) is not so much what appeared under Ron Paul's name in some old newsletters; the real issue is the half-assed and cowardly way and he's dealt with it: denial and lame excuse-making. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he's said, yes, I signed those but my philosophy has evolved since then.
Sorry, don't buy your claim that you'd have more respect for him if he'd take responsibility for the sentiments. I don't think you believe the offending quotes reflect his philosophy at any point in time, so there's no reason for him to say it's evolved since them.
Anonymous - so he pandered for support by allowing some paid hacks to make inflammatory and offense remarks that went out repeatedly under his signature, even though he didn't really share those sentiments? And that's somehow better?
The whole thing strikes me as chicken shit. If this were anyone but Ron Paul he'd be toast now.
Past criminal acts are fair game, but there should be a statute of limitations for past words to be drudged up. Language and attitudes change over time--especially decades of time.
The reason he's not "toast" is that Ron Paul's speaking the truth about war, civil rights, and the economy.
Frankly, there's some degree of truth in the "welfare check" statement--it just happened to be Blacks at the time--it's a mixed bunch now (look at the whites in OWS). If the welfare state hadn't sucked away our freedom and means of production, then the statist argument of the welfare state might hold water. It just doesn't now.
Unlike some libertarians, though, I'm not willing to hand all of the social programs over to the market---yet. But a decade or two will tell the tale (tyranny or liberty).
6 comments:
There were a lot of black folk who professed a degree of admiration for George Wallace too.
We've all said some stupid, awful things in the past. If the racist sentiments went out under his name, whether he actually penned them or not, he's endorsed the sentiments. Sample quote: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
He claims he never read them? And he let them be published under his name? Was he being duped or did he just not care?
This wasn't a one-time occurrence - it was an ongoing thing.
The point (for me anyway) is not so much what appeared under Ron Paul's name in some old newsletters; the real issue is the half-assed and cowardly way and he's dealt with it: denial and lame excuse-making. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he's said, yes, I signed those but my philosophy has evolved since then.
How freaking pathetic.
Sorry, don't buy your claim that you'd have more respect for him if he'd take responsibility for the sentiments. I don't think you believe the offending quotes reflect his philosophy at any point in time, so there's no reason for him to say it's evolved since them.
Anonymous - so he pandered for support by allowing some paid hacks to make inflammatory and offense remarks that went out repeatedly under his signature, even though he didn't really share those sentiments? And that's somehow better?
The whole thing strikes me as chicken shit. If this were anyone but Ron Paul he'd be toast now.
Past criminal acts are fair game, but there should be a statute of limitations for past words to be drudged up. Language and attitudes change over time--especially decades of time.
The reason he's not "toast" is that Ron Paul's speaking the truth about war, civil rights, and the economy.
Frankly, there's some degree of truth in the "welfare check" statement--it just happened to be Blacks at the time--it's a mixed bunch now (look at the whites in OWS). If the welfare state hadn't sucked away our freedom and means of production, then the statist argument of the welfare state might hold water. It just doesn't now.
Unlike some libertarians, though, I'm not willing to hand all of the social programs over to the market---yet. But a decade or two will tell the tale (tyranny or liberty).
So - which of his positions will he repudiate next, when it becomes politically expedient?
Post a Comment