More ad hominem. As I explained already, Ron Paul is still a powerful figure in many people's minds. Besides, this story is two years old, not twenty. The story isn't the newsletter -- it's the employees speaking out on it. Did you catch the name of the thread?
The part I have a problem with is that it appears that he used his newsletter to reach a population with fringe beliefs, systematically adopting positions he himself didn't believe (such as racism). My concern is whether or not he spent 5 years dispensing intellectually dishonest opinions, not whether he's a racist. I don't think he is, personally.
You're saying that I am "cry[ing]". You accused me of attacking RP (something I have gone to lengths not to do). You're talking about contents of another thread and attempting to paint a picture of someone who is upset. That is ad hominem. Find your encyclopedia.
Well, as I said to August my concern is not whether Paul is a racist. He has stated he isn't and I have no reason not to believe him. My concern is whether he has a history of using racist statements in order to dispense his message to people who would otherwise not necessarily be interested in his positions. He himself is not a racist, but he appears to have been a knowing party in fanning racism in others, whether that was his goal or not (again, I think not).
I remember hearing that someone else wrote that but even if he did who cares not like he will ever be the president. I would rather have Ron then Obama. We wouldn't be killing kids in the middle east, we wouldn't be turning into a police state and Hemp/Cannabis would be legal
No one cares he knowingly used racism just to distribute his political views? It just seems so... villainous.
I think people are missing the point... no one's accusing Ron Paul of racism. I'm concerned over an apparent 5 years of disingenuousness in distributing his message. Pandering to racists without believing it himself.
Everyone panders in politics though. If I had to pander to racists to make the world a better place I'd do it too.
Really? I wouldn't. I don't think willingly manipulating people by appealing to their most animalistic desires is a good thing, and I don't think the harm that it might do can be washed away. It just does damage to people's minds.
I'm not attacking your character, you have no idea what an ad hom is. You are singling out one part of my rebuttal that you are molding to fit this argument of yours. If I say you are crying, complaining, whining, about something then you should look into it, and not create these imaginary ad homs as a defense to not address my rebuttals. You have spent the past few days trying to paint RP as a racist, and now are backtracking on that stance, and saying how he knowingly dispensed this racist material, and while it doesnt make him a racist, makes him intellectually dishonest, and panders to the racist vote, WHICH HAS OBVIOUSLY WORKED, RIGHT??? Once again, I refuted this on my first post, and you havent addressed it. Hearsay as evidence, especially when your own sources show equal amounts of people agreeing and disagreeing with the stance, is no sort of evidence at all. You complain ( OH look an ad hom ) about RP being intellectually dishonest, but are doing it yourself.
In this most recent post you, among other things, stated that I am creating imaginary ad hominems (itself an implicit statement on character and a particularly ironic ad hominem); you have claimed to have disproved my point because you called the published statements of two people with daily interactions with RP during the time in question "hearsay"; you have claimed (quite incorrectly) that I am trying to paint Ron Paul as a racist when I said less than 5 posts ago "I don't think he is [a racist]". Find ONE point you want to make, and make it. The rambling nature of your posts in this thread so far has made effective dialogue impossible. Edit: this is my weakness -- I am unwilling and perhaps even unable to decipher the meaning of your run-on sentences and frequently shifting points of focus. If you want to continue talking to me, I would appreciate it if you could try to make concise, singular points so we can stay on the same page.
i love the title of that article. "Is it possible for a Jew to also be anti-Semitic?" isn't that kind of anti Semitic? why would that author think that Jews would be any different than anyone else? does he hate jews or something?
Its like Obama and reverend riche or whatever his name was. Just character assassination by association. Most of which is only extreme minimum contact. Mr wolf do you think Obama the one that is actually in power is any better? Or even a lot worse? Would you rather spend your time arguing with a person of little to no interest in racism or someone actually in power and shows these traits you despise. Obama often uses race right? How about Maxine waters? Al sharpton? Jessie Jackson? I know plenty of Republicans are the same. But cmon. Do you really believe dr Paul is a racist? Do you really know his stance on affirmative action? Have you heard his reasoning? Honestly. sent from my Bat Mobile
I believe the backround to this is Rothbard defenders who claimed he could not have been anti semitic because he was a Jew. Hence the rhetorical question.