Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose we could take this and twist it around to make Mittens look racist, after all he belonged to a church that allowed racism to exist until 1978'
Look I love Ron Paul and all but Mormon racism is nothing compared to the Southern Baptist Church's crusade against black America. Their entire branch of the Baptist Church was created in order to protect the institution of slavery. They were a huge driving force behind all of the worst things that happened to blacks in this country. They didn't actually get around to apologizing for it and disavowing their hate-crimes till 1994.
Trick is, the tabloid press is a lot more interested in digging up dirt on the Mormons that most people don't even look in their own house, or they'd know that Mormonism is vastly less racist than this nation's second largest religion.
Ron Paul belongs to the Southern Baptist Church. No I don't think that makes him a racist.
Ron Paul's predictions were more than some lucky vague guesses, they have been detailed and specific, and that is why he was called "the prophet" by time magazine, and you would know that if you were half as educated as you pretend to be ...
You guys crack me up, spending so much time bashing the mainstream media for being a poor source then so quick to dig up anything they have that supports your position to lean on. Can I assume you are okay with whatever material I source from mainstream media (specifically Time) to rebuke your arguments?
Same with the population, they are dumb dumb sheeple who won't wake up then suddenly you are using a poll of them and saying see looky see?
Quote:
And the failure of the Karzai government was not in reference to them no longer being in power, but to the failure of their security policies.
Perfect example, tailoring a prediction to your own specific interpretation to triumphantly call out your hero as some amazing prophet. Sure the regime he said would fail is still there so it is an ongoing chapter in history but we'll just mark that as a perfect accurate prediction anyway and bow before the prophet.
Quote:
Again, something you would know about where you half as educated as you pretend to be ...
Says the bible thumper carrying an internet signboard "end of days" trying to spread his own mental illness paranoia to frighten others into voting for his candidate.
You guys crack me up, spending so much time bashing the mainstream media for being a poor source then so quick to dig up anything they have that supports your position to lean on. Can I assume you are okay with whatever material I source from mainstream media (specifically Time) to rebuke your arguments?
Same with the population, they are dumb dumb sheeple who won't wake up then suddenly you are using a poll of them and saying see looky see?
Perfect example, tailoring a prediction to your own specific interpretation to triumphantly call out your hero as some amazing prophet. Sure the regime he said would fail is still there so it is an ongoing chapter in history but we'll just mark that as a perfect accurate prediction anyway and bow before the prophet.
Says the bible thumper carrying an internet signboard "end of days" trying to spread his own mental illness paranoia to frighten others into voting for his candidate.
Do you ever have anything useful to say? ... What a waste of space.
Good luck, you're certainly going to need it, and you're going to remember me and Dr. Paul when when its your turn to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Good luck, you're certainly going to need it, and you're going to remember me and Dr. Paul when when its your turn to suffer the consequences of your actions.
It is interesting that you are incapable of seeing the disparaging comments in the post I was responding too. Go team!
I do not see how you have any idea what I am capable of or what I see unless you ask. I also do not follow your logic. Are you saying they were disparaging you so you did it in self-defense?
I am sorry, but your comment appears to try to deflect personal responsibility for unhealthy behavior and then blaming others.
There are a number of reasons to claim that Ron Paul is racist, and at this point the evidence is overwhelming.
no, the conjecture is overwhelming.
Quote:
This won't convince the die hard Ron Paul fanatics, but I wish I could at least encourage his supporters to interrogate the cause behind his enormous appeal to white supremacists.
most of us already have. and i'm probably going to inundate some of you with this post, but i want you to see some of the evidence that i have researched that shows that there is no way that paul is racist.
i don't condemn normal liberals for sharing similar social traits with marxists, or normal conservatives for sharing similar foundational beliefs with the religious fundamentalists, insomuch as they all simply share similar backgrounds (hint: most of us do, even across political boundaries). it is only when people within the liberal or conservative communities attach themselves to the extremist and tyrannical ideologies of those awful groups that they cross over and become an enemy.
some of you on this forum and elsewhere, however, seem all too eager to demonize and attack anyone that doesn't agree with your political agenda, or anyone whose political agenda you cannot understand.
the newsletters
Spoiler
Quote:
1st - the newsletters are still ridiculously damning. Lew Rockwell was likely the individual who produced these, and either Paul is an irresponsible politician or he is complicit in the view which have been expressed by the newsletters.
Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? - Reason Magazine
This is from a Libertarian site, and though they even give Paul the benefit of the doubt, when we look at more information, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so.
i personally, even as a paul supporter, think that he was negligent in overseeing how his name was used in the newsletters––a sentiment that he also shares, given his official apologies that hsi detractors continually overlook. he has denied writing or being involved with the writing of these controversial statements, and his claim has been backed up by many people.
what he did do wrong though, was allow someone else to ghostwrite articles for him that he was not careful to supervise. has has come out and claimed "moral responsibility" for the fact that they were written, despite stating that they were not written by him and do not reflect his sentiments. he does not take responsibility for them as his own beliefs or thoughts.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
even beyond all of this, the controversial words in the newsletters are repudiated by everything he has ever said in public, the entirety of his voting record, the way he raised his kids, the way he delivered babies for poor people (including minorities) for free or reduced price. actions speak louder than words, and paul's words and actions have been consistently honest and non-racist for longer than i have been alive in my 31 years. that is something that not a single other candidate in the race today can say.
that seems fairly well-wrapped up to me, but i'm not holding my breath that such a logical and straightforward answer is acceptable to some of you.
civil war history
Spoiler
Quote:
2nd -
Ron Paul's Neo-Confederate "South Was Right" Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag - YouTube
This is neoconfederate propaganda of the highest degree.
true, but it is also simply libertarian propaganda as well. are you claiming on purpose that anyone that disagrees with a large central government, and anyone that argues the idea of conflict between said government and individual states as a provocation of the american civil war is a racist? i would find that odd, since i have been to school with black people that believe that slavery was simply an excuse for the north to crush the south. are they racist too?
Quote:
When you stand in front of a confederate flag and state that the south was right, this goes beyond simply Libertarian principles and begins appealing to the nasty side of some white southerners that wished for the days of open white supremacy rather than the thinly veiled white supremacy that reigns now.
you're stretching yourself pretty thin here.
first, i understand and can empathize with the idea that some people take offense to the southern flag. but a lot of people still fly the flag because they see it as a standard of liberty, not as a standard of slavery, so i therefore can empathize and understand their desire to fly that flag despite the fact that other people take offense for the wrong reasons.
i have lived in the south. i know a lot of these people, and yes, i have met plenty of them that fly it in resentment of blacks and other minorities. but i also know many that are not racist at all, and still fly the flag because it represents state sovereignty. remember that even the swastika was a jainist symbol of luck and a buddhist symbol of eternity before it became the nazi logo of hatred and death. should easterners stop using it simply because someone else bastardized it?
in this video, i kept waiting for some inflammatory comment about minorities, but instead, this is simply a video about the historic roots of the conflict between state rights and the centralized government. to use this as "overwhelming evidence" of racism tells me that you already had that preconceived notion before you ever did this research.
his two main points are that:
1) the civil war was not fought only over issues of slavery, but over many issues.
2) an overwhelming federal power repudiates the american republican as defined in the declaration of independence by bypassing the consent of the people.
any basic history book can show you that number one is correct. you're going to have a tough time of convincing me that every textbook i've read with that opinion, or every person i've met with that opinion was racist. slavery was one of among many issues, and to declare that anyone who doesn't agree that slavery was the preeminent issue of the civil war is a racist is just as absurd as saying that it wasn't an issue at all.
in my opinion, this is what most of this debate comes down to. both sides have different definitions and different ideals of what happened immediately prior to and during the civil war, and what had to be done about it.
northerners might have fought the war primarily because of slavery; even in the video that you linked, paul states that the north used slavery as its impetus for going to war, which means that whether or not that was the driving motivation of the politicians, it would have been for most of the northern citizens.
for the southerners that i have conversed with, it was as much if not more about their state and state rights as it was about slavery. so both sides are arguing different things, but it is very possible that both of them are correct.
what that means though, when you come in and argue that one side or the other was not correct, is that you are wrong.
you mentioned the neo-confederate groups. most of them claim that slavery was not the main provocation of the civil war. but hardly any of them make the leap to support slavery though. you, however, are making that leap by saying that belief in the former automatically implies support in the latter. you have decided that there is no separation, but your personal definition is not shared by libertarians or even most neo-confederates out there.
therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to doubt the sincerity of the federal government's excuses for war––especially against its own people––and still maintain that they are not racist. i doubt very often the federal government's excuses for going to war; if the invasion of iraq has not introduced suspicion of the american fed in your mind then i think you need to spend less time playing video games and more time reading books and newspapers.
i am a USMC infantry vet, and i am proclaiming to you from experience that in almost any war, it is never as simple as the north or the south is the good or the bad guy. there are always shady layers of political corruption and greed and gain, more so when the federal government is given such unrestricted power as is the case now. even beyond that, more often than not, when it actually comes down to the battlefield, the soldiers are not fighting for or against slavery, or whatever other excuse their political leaders have dreamed up; they are fighting for their own lives and those of their brothers on the line with them.
if you want to try and defend that the american civil war was one of the few wars that was perfectly cut and dry, black and white, good and bad, then be my guest. but i think you will be historically, factually and philosophically handicapped from the get-go.
one of ron's opening statements in this same video that you linked introduces us to a famous anarchist of the 19th century, lysander spoon, a passionate abolitionist. however, he actually did go so far as to claim that the south was in the right and that the north was wrong.
Lysander Spooner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although Spooner had advocated the use of violence to abolish slavery, he denounced the Republicans' use of violence to prevent the Southern states from seceding during the American Civil War. He published several letters and pamphlets about the war, arguing that the Republican objective was not to eradicate slavery, but rather to preserve the Union by force."
but according to you, that makes him a racist. i guess you'd better let the great frederick douglass (a spectacular black abolitionist, in case you weren't aware) know that he was propping up a racist when he lauded lysander spooner in his "the meaning of july fourth for the negro." too bad he didn't know at the time that a century and a half later, you would be so authoritatively discrediting his abolitionist sources as racist themselves.
american civil rights act of 1964
Spoiler
Quote:
3rd-
Ron Paul - Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Hardball Interview) - YouTube
Ron Paul claims that it's outlandish to suggest that someone who is against property rights and states' rights is a racist, but it's most definitely not, especially if we recognize that states' rights has been historically used by racists
the above statement is a nonissue. is your opinion now to be that we shouldn't ever invoke property rights or state rights, even in less controversial cases that don't hurt the feelings of overly sensitive and accusatory people, just because somewhere in the past, a racist person benefitted from the same rights as well? i ask because that is exactly the argument that you just made.
unfortunately for you and your less than thoughtful statement, property/state rights have been historically used by nonracists as well. in fact, we all benefit from state rights every day, racist or not. we all breathe the same air and use the same public restrooms too; does it mark me as a racist if i live under the same basic laws, and use the same natural resources and public utilities that a racist man enjoys?
paul has said that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."
matthews and others have accused him multiple times of being racist simply because he wouldn't agree with a legislation that he saw as unconstitutional, claiming that he obviously was against the removal of the jim crow laws that the civil rights act of 64 would do away with.
matthews and the others are fully aware that the jim crow laws were only part of the 64 reform, but they cling to the idea that if you are against one aspect of it, then you must be against all of it, because they have no argument against him otherwise.
in case you are personally not aware, the act of '64 addressed all of these issues:
title I––addressed unequal voter registration
title II––addressed discrimination on private property, in other words, property which the federal government does not have jurisdiction to enforce discriminatory words or actions.
title III––addressed denial of public access based on prejudice
title IV––addressed desegregation of public schools
title V––addressed the earlier civil rights act of 1957
title VI––addressed discrimination by government agencies receiving federal funds
title VII––addressed discrimination in employment
title VIII––addressed compilation of voter data
title IX––addressed the transfer of civil rights cases to federal court
title X––addressed community disputes involving discrimination
title XI––established fines and imprisonments for contempt concerning trials of the above titles
he has argued time and again with them that he was all for the removal of the jim crow laws, and that he did not at all oppose the intent to end discrimination, but could not give the thumbs up to the package that they were included in because some of the other titles were unconstitutional.
the problem comes when these legislations are all chained together in some 1,500-page document, including hidden acts that have nothing to do with the rest of the proposed bill, but give large sums of money to whatever corporation the sponsoring politician currently has investments with. this causes problems and makes it so that some good ideas have to get cut because they come along with a crapload of bad legislations. i'd love to see the day when government workings, as obama promised but has yet to fulfill, become transparent, and when legislations cannot contain hidden and sneaky deals between greedy congressmen and corporations. that day will make bills and acts such as the one that overthrew the jim crow laws all the sweeter.
but, on to the subject of personal property rights:
you said that claiming that personal property rights trump a public's desire not to have the potential to be confronted by discriminatory attitudes is racist, because racist people have used those rights in the past. i've already addressed the backward logic with which you threw that declaration together. but you need to also understand the basis of those rights.
we recognize the right to free speech (although this right is also being trodden upon by federal and even local legislation), even though historically people have used it to promote racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced ideology. my right to free speech is more important than your desire to not have to listen to idiots saying idiotic things. even if they are racists.
why should personal property rights be any different? people have the right to say what they want, to voice the opinions that they believe in, no matter how ignorant and incorrect they might be, because this is a constitutionally guaranteed right, a foundational principle of our freedom.
similarly, if i choose not to allow black people, red-haired people, short people, catholic people, old people, or any other groups on my [i]personal property,[/] that is my right. even if i am proving myself to be the biggest jerk on the block by doing so.
you might think that you are doing the world a service by silencing their opinions for the sake of decency or correctness, but if you are stomping on the constitution to do so, you are creating a worse evil than what exists in their ignorant views. in a like manner, in order to restrict personal property in this way, you have to go against the constitution and the rights that we as human beings, and specifically, american citizens, are meant to have.
Quote:
and in fact would likely lead to significant racist legislation in states like Arizona and Mississippi. More appealing to the neoconfederate group while crying innocence on racism.
nope. because those states would still be limited to legislation that could pass supreme court rulings, indicating that the federal government still determines what is constitutional and what is not, what stomps on the rights of men and women, regardless of color, and what does not.
back in the early days of our nation, we proclaimed one thing, that "all men are created equal," while refusing to free the slaves at the same time. this injustice was done as high as the federal level, in order to allow, according to some historians, the ability of the colonies to form a cohesive nation, and according to others, even to allow the new nation the food and commerce needed to get it up on its feet. according to others, slavery was allowed with the notion that it would eventually disappear.
in my opinion, it was simply allowed, with the stipulation that enslaving blacks wasn't a sin against humanity because they were supposedly inferior, because the rich and powerful didn't want to change. it was comfy for them.
this hostile environment had the negative effect of allowing nonconstitutional legislations to pass the supreme court, sometimes regardless of how blatantly abusive and unjust they were. this lasted even up until the latter part of the last century.
but things changed. society woke up, and it was necessitated that freedom and human rights be accorded to everyone, regardless of skin color. there is no majority of bigots and racists now that enact laws under the very nose of the constitution to keep blacks at the back of the bus. even if they tried it today, the supreme court would have to strike it down.
the racist legislations that you speak of are not going to happen. a few individual business owners without common sense or decency would certainly put up signs saying "no coloreds allowed," and other nonsense, but their businesses wouldn't last long. social evolution would get rid of their ability to make money very quickly.
"better the devil you know," comes to mind here. i would rather know it if someone hated me for who or what i represent, rather than find out after they had urinated in my soup or ground glass into my mashed potatoes or something.
i realize that this isn't ideal for everyone, and that some people would like simply to never have to be confronted with ignorant people like that. but frankly, we don't have the right to never have to deal with stupid people. trying to make that a right would automatically destroy rights given in the constitution, rights that are far more important not only to our individual freedoms, but to the integrity and freedom of a republic as a whole.
therefore, so long as they are not violating the actual rights of other people, such as the right to life and private property, the property rights of even the selfish, cowardly, ignorant racists in the nation must be upheld, or our constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.
i myself am of the opinion that if there were a constitutionally valid way to actually criminalize discrimination of this type, then it would be a good thing, and judging by paul's statements about the jim crow laws and similar abuses, he would be too. but you he won't do it if it impedes on constitutional rights.
first of all, you are going to need to get a lot more specific than the general portal to an enormous database if you want to actually make a point and produce viable evidence.
Quote:
Hackers from Anonymous steal a ton of data from the American Third Position party, a White Supremacist organization. I've looked through the files myself,
how thoroughly have you looked? there are quite a few files, and some of them are scores of pages long. you read them all? that would be what is implied by, "i've looked through the files myself."
for some reason, i am doubting that you did any more than a cursory examination.
but if you did, start posting some specific references.
Quote:
and they find a number of well-known supremacists claiming to have met with Paul numerous times, including conference calls between Paul and the party's board of directors. There is enough factual information, including addresses and other incriminating evidence to let me know that at least some of this data is genuine, and the A3P has admitted to being hacked. Jamie Kelso and his ilk are avid Paul supporters, and if Paul hasn't outright rejected them, one has to wonder why.
because he has more important things to do than try to counter or disavow every whacko out there that tries to usurp libertarian ideals for their own selfish purposes.
it is not ron paul that draws them. it is not his personal charisma of group affiliations that draw them. it is libertarianism that draws them––and he is the best known libertarian on the planet––because as well as protecting the rights of good people everywhere, it protects the rights of the racist punks out there. that is why they like it.
but, as i said earlier, those rights were very consciously defined and protected, even in the case of the racist people or the criminal people of the world, because when they aren't, the law-abiding, productive members of society also begin to lose their rights.
either way, i didn't find much of what you suggested you found on this website, so i would appreciate links and quotes. his name was certainly mentioned often enough, though not as often as obama, some canadian named paul fromm, etc; and in every reference except for the last one i quote below, as simply someone trying to use libertarianism for their own racist agenda, or in no real meaningful way at all:
"Here is an idea for Jamie to think over. I think (if possible) this site should allow a user to edit his posts forever, like Ron Paul Forums."
"Were you at the Ron Paul counter-convention in Minneapolis on Sept. 2, 2008?"
etc.
and we've already gone over the fact that there are crazies and loons following every candidate, paul included.
interestingly enough, i did find reference to some of those racists being mad at paul because he and his staffers apparently dismissed or confronted them or something similar.
"there was no reason for you [kelso] to be insulted by some weird looking flunky of Paul."
The lynching of Ron Paul | The Vancouver Observer
even as the bloggers come out screaming about the hacked emails and ron paul's obvious ties to the neonazis, there are others scratching their heads and claiming that this whole story looks fishy. that anonymous would attack the only candidate in the race that actually seems sincere, determined and competent enough to protect their internet freedoms. that they would attack that same politician after more or less publicly announcing their support of him. that some of the names, addresses and dates in the emails are reported to not match up, or not belong to the individuals claimed, etc.
beyond the blogs and conspiracy theorists' sites though, i don't really see any valid sources covering this. i'll wait until more info comes out.
war on drugs/terrorism/etc
Spoiler
Quote:
The idiotic claim that because he supports changing drug laws does not mean he isn't racist, especially since his repeated emphasis on the rights of states would make it impossible for him to really do anything in that capacity anyways.
wait, so his constant preaching about how the rights and freedoms of minorities are being stripped and abused, his constant voting record on their behalf, that all speaks less to you than some unconfirmed opinions on a hacker's website that he is racist?
paul is pointing out to us that our current drug laws are unfairly targeting and imprisoning blacks and other minorities. take a look at the numbers and tell me that this is not racist in and of itself:
Key Findings - Human Rights Watch Report (United States - Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs)
"Two out of five blacks sent to prison are convicted of drug offenses, compared to one in four whites."
and:
[i]"Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. But blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison.
"The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment."
War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Statistics from 1998 show that there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-American drug users made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[55] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than other races,[61] even though they only supposedly comprised 13% of regular drug users.[55]"
america's war on drugs does not target white people. but it actually does target minorities.
he wants to stop that! and you call it an "idiotic claim," that this kind of evidence supports that he is not racist? i don't think you've fully thought this through, or you would see that the establishment norm that ron paul fights against––including the democratic party––is operating under far more racist policies than ron paul could ever be accused of.
similarly, paul opposes not only federal involvement of the death penalty, but speaks out to the idea that capital punishment wrongly and disproportionately affects minorities, ends up killing innocent people far too often, and is otherwise simply a bad idea.
further, although you didn't bring this up, paul's goals to bring the troops home not only from the mideast, but from unwanted military bases all over the world, means that hundreds of thousands to millions of what to us are considered minorities will be spared. paul is even against the racial profiling that santorum is carelessly claiming is necessary for our country.
Ron Paul: "What If He Looks Like Timothy McVeigh?" - YouTube
america's war on terror is not targeting white people. but it actually does target minorities.
and again, paul wants to stop this. he wants to get the federal government out of interventionist and imperialist campaigns. he wants to stop bombing the hell out of innocent civilians in iraq and afghanistan and libya and the rest of the world. and again, as in pretty much any of paul's political positions, this one comes up because very often our government does it in unconstitutional ways, declaring war without actually going through legal channels, etc.
state enactment of racist policies
Spoiler
Quote:
If Mississippi wants to enforce draconian drug policies and reinstate racial segregation, whoops, their prerogative. If the folks in Idaho want to a white militia to dole out justice, states rights, baby. This nonsense about freedom ignores the fact that America is a fundamentally unequal society both economically and racially, and Ron Paul has fooled a bunch of non-racist individuals on both the left and the right when it comes to why he supports the kind of society he does.
nope. as already mentioned, the federal landscape is very different today, and there is not a court in the land right now that could enact the kinds of ridiculous legislations that you are proposing, because the supreme court, the media, and everyone else that had a say in the matter would crucify them.
discrimination will certainly become more apparent where it already exists. but it will not be able to gain a governmental foothold as you are suggesting, because we no longer live in 18th and 19th century america where it was ok to preach liberty out of one corner of your mouth while legislating slavery and jim crow laws out of the other side.
feel free to catch up with the rest of us whenever you feel like it.
Quote:
Ron Paul won't win the election, which is great, but the kind of fanatical support he's been able to garner has been impressive. Some are just ignorant (and will no doubt assail me as an evil wretched racist myself, or a blind sheep, etc., etc.,),
or just ignorant and in opposition to the ideals of liberty that you don't very well understand.
Quote:
but many know exactly where Paul's path would lead us. Again, even if you don't want to accept my argument that Paul is a racist, you need to think carefully about why so many white supremacists love him so much.
already covered that too. and i don't hold it against him that there are kkk members praying for the day when they can put up a "no negroes" sign in their place of business any more than i held it against obama when he was elected that a bunch of black panthers started ranting and raving about how whitey was finally going to get beat down and feel chains around his neck, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
hell, there are probably mormons and flds (mormon fundamentalists) hoping to high heaven that romney might reinstate prohibition, or that he'll enact polygamy tax write-offs or something. doesn't mean that the collective delusions of his sheeple are his direct responsibility.
************************
so, i'm repeating the idea that actions speak louder than words, that ron paul's 40+ years as a political ideologist and leader show a man with great understanding of the constitution, of economics, of culture and community, of healthcare, of foreign and military policy, and of how to fix this country.
don't believe me yet? still think he's racist? go ahead and dispute the rest of these people too then.
wolf blitzer interview
Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN - YouTube
black man's support of ron paul
More on Ron Paul racial equality - YouTube
another black man's support for paul
Ron Paul & Jimi Hendrix @ Tucker Saloon 11/22/11 8 pm est - YouTube
support by many black people for paul
Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist? - YouTube
Look I love Ron Paul and all but Mormon racism is nothing compared to the Southern Baptist Church's crusade against black America. Their entire branch of the Baptist Church was created in order to protect the institution of slavery. They were a huge driving force behind all of the worst things that happened to blacks in this country. They didn't actually get around to apologizing for it and disavowing their hate-crimes till 1994.
Trick is, the tabloid press is a lot more interested in digging up dirt on the Mormons that most people don't even look in their own house, or they'd know that Mormonism is vastly less racist than this nation's second largest religion.
Quote:
Ron Paul belongs to the Southern Baptist Church. No I don't think that makes him a racist
.
I agree and that was the point of my post. Any thing can be twisted to make it look worse than it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
