No just just trying to stop the 16+ million murders that the left that fail to take a moral responsibility for their actions.

I'm glad he made the point that internal causes can't be separated from external causes. If you believe in determinism then you have to realize that before your birth everything that you will do was determined, but none of it was internal. And once you are born, how then do you become culpable for the initial state of the universe?

I agree with compatibilists on the broad point that determinism is largely compatible with holding people responsible for their actions. But I think they're too hung up on the idea of moral responsibility. Even without thinking anyone is the author of their own actions, it's still wise to lock people up who are an immediate threat to others, or use measured punishment as a deterrent, or hope to change future behavior with treatment programs. The only thing you don't get to do is be vindictive and cruel, thinking the perpetrator deserves to suffer. But I've never believed in punishment for the sake revenge anyway.

I'm far enough away from these issues to admit that I don't have anything like concrete knowledge on the subject, but I feel like I should mention some of the more obvious counterpoints to some of the things he's said in this video. Otherwise I'd get that dirty echo chamber feeling, and no amount of showering seems to wash that away. Could be I'm just a masochist, though, who enjoys arguing.

I think there's racism in every culture. I think it's often much more subtle than described in the video, often even subconscious. I also think that modern western culture is among the least racist cultures to have ever existed, despite our many complaints.

I guess I'll talk about Libya first. The west (the white people he was talking about) is continuously demonized for supporting tyrants and the like. Yet when they participate in overthrowing a clear example of a extravagant super villain tyrant, they are demonized for that. I'm not saying they didn't have other motives, I'm just saying that it's an example of a tautology. No matter which choice they make they are labeled racist.

Now, when beleaguered folk make a desperate attempt to dangerously cross a sea, well knowing the risks they are incurring, it is again the fault of the Italians for not rescuing then with sufficient alacrity. Yes, many of them are coming from countries the west had a hand in destabilizing. But it would be pretty racist for you to demand that the Italian navy take full moral responsibility for the actions of other western nations, simply because they are white too. Also, if the only number you pay attention to is the number that drown, your bias is showing.

Next the issue of the Commonwealth. It seems absurd to expect the UK to treat former colonies populated by citizens that had moved there the same as former conquests that have since shrugged off the yoke of empire. The justifications for this discrimination would seem to be a combination of racism, cultural chauvinism and sober pragmatism. The latter two factors clearly scale with the gap between the culture of the colony in question and the home country, and probably ought to in some sense.

The incarceration thing is tougher to poke holes in, and clearly a much more touchy subject. Once could argue all sorts of justifications for why more members of ethnic minorities are apprehended, but it's nebulous and smells of bias and chauvinism, at best ending in a chicken vs egg conundrum. But once you're in police custody, I think can agree on demanding a higher level of equality of outcome. So I checked out a charity called Inquest who had compiled pretty comprehensive stats on police custody deaths since 1990. Here's a link: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/bame-deaths-in-police-custody
To summarise, since 1990, ethnic minorities have made up a total of 153 out of 1557 deaths in police custody, or roughly 10%. Given that they currently make up 13% of the population, that seems to be well within an acceptable range of results, so I was confused at first. Then I thought maybe he had misspoken and had meant to say state custody, or inmate deaths. So again I looked for some numbers, and again Inquest had the most comprehensive data, broken down by year and ethnicity etc. Again here's a link: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-prison
It shows 453 out of 3963 prison deaths are suffered by ethnic minorities. This seems almost perfectly in line with the 13% population of said minorities. So again, I'm a bit confused by the point he's making.

All of that said, I think I agree with the sentiment of his presentation, which perhaps confuses me even more.

@newtboy. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I disagree with you 100%. It is not okay to hit.

That guy had a lot of options and he didn't take any of them. I agree with you that not everyone has the skills to hold it together in situations like this.

Just because people fail at taking other options doesn't make hitting back the right thing to do.

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit.

Of course if someone is coming at you, you might have to strike to KEEP THEM FROM HITTING YOU. Retaliation, though, is not a "moral" response. It is a failure of maturity and coping skills. It is the failure to take a step back to protect yourself.

Stand your ground sucks with guns or fists.

I took a self defense class years ago. I was taught skills that are potentially damaging. I was also taught to use my words to de-escalate.

I do not think it is good to say it is okay to hit and say it is "morally" okay.

We want to be the change, right? So say no hitting, mean it, and have understanding when someone hits anyway. It isn't about perfection. It is about a goal.

Well. We have traded our points of view a couple of times now. I'm certainly not going to change my mind. Would you like the last word?

Do you even know what a sociopath is?


noun, Psychiatry.
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

You causally mock the death & suffering of basically anyone who isn't a LEO on this site daily.

As the progressive treehugger hippie I am..

Why wouldn't I want you to learn some empathy and compassion?

The best way to gain understanding is thru share experience.

WHAT?!? You've never seen American football, or soccer? Multiple refs. Even tennis has multiple referees.
Yes, they can be counted on to do things right because their actions are public. That mirrors the original suggestion that the police video be streamed online publicly in real time. If the refs could turn off the cameras during the game, and make the stadium 'leave the scene and stop interfering', we would likely see just that, infantile backstabbing and/or a striped wall form.
In the US, pay can be crap, but the long hours can mean massive overtime. There are also usually benefits that make up for the (sometimes) mediocre pay.
I agree, they deal mostly with the 'seedy underbelly of society', which is why I think they should spend some time serving the community as part of their job...of course, they are already understaffed and underfunded, so I don't have an answer of how to make that happen. I just think it would give them a better viewpoint of those they 'serve and protect'.
In the US, the fear is of being CAUGHT. That's the only way they face retribution. By sticking up for each other when one commits a crime, it makes being caught nearly impossible.
Yes, because they have authority I feel they have a moral responsibility to wield it responsibly. They should also have a heavy handed legal responsibility, just in case their morals are out of whack.
The only one's I leave out of the blanket condemnation are those willing to stand against their own when their own are wrong...they are seemingly few and far between, but I do admit they exist.

The problem is with grouping people into "drunk drivers" - as if they are a monolith.
You wouldn't say "black people commit more crimes, so black people are harmful" ... that would be considered racist - because it characterizes all the individuals of a group as the same as the worst individuals of the group.
But people who drink and drive don't get that measure of consideration. Across the board they are treated as if they had done harm, whether or not they actually did.


Simple matter really.

Drunk drivers that do harm, do harm.
Sober drivers that do harm, do harm.
Drunk drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.
Sober drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.

The harm is in the harm, not in the drunk.


Jail, etc. is real harm to a person's life.
Lost time, lost payments (leading to lost house/car), lost relationships, etc.
If they didn't do any harm themselves, then the punishment is not justified.

Sober drivers get a hand-wave for the harm they cause, as if not drinking or not being on a cell phone makes you unaccountable for your actions.


Drinking is fundamentally a personal matter. It involves only ones's self.
Running into another person/property and damaging them/it involves other people (ergo society), so society has moral domain to intervene to help the victim(s).

There's a certain perversion to persecuting people who behave in a disliked manner (and did no harm and had no victim), and then neglecting the plight of victims when whoever harmed them hadn't been behaving in a disliked manner.

We are all individuals, morally responsible for our individual actions.
We should be accountable for our real actions.
Not theoretical "actions that could have been, had things gone differently".


I'm not a fan of people driving drunk, but I would never harm someone for doing it without doing any harm themselves, just because I don't like it.

I'm also not a fan of people failing at their obligation to maintain control of their vehicle, and injuring/maiming/crippling/killing people, and then not being held accountable for the damage they caused because "it was an accident".
Why should the victim be accountable for paying for the damages? They didn't do the damage.

Instead of playing big brother and approving/disapproving of personal behavior, we should be focused on helping victims get justice.
"IMO"

-scheherazade

If you're in the army and they are killing people, children just because they're on the streets do you just shut up and leave? Not only can you not just leave you're forced to be there, but if you just leave and do nothing, nothing changes.

You witness horrific crimes it's your moral responsibility to stand up and do something about it. Manning did that, I don't see how that is wrong.

Also most governments terrorize and I know you'll never accept this but the largest terrorist operations ever have come right out of Washington.

What your analysis is missing is any kind of cultural context. These things don't just happen in a vacuum, and nor are all ideas created equal. In many cases you are just trading one type of chain for another. Yes, mass media certainly has the ability to create and shape the prevailing social norms, and this can inspire counter cultural movements within a society. That's what happened in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, which is a root cause for the sexual immorality we see in society today. But it didn't just happen because people 'gained more knowledge', it happened because there was already a fundamental shift in the cultural ethos. An idea does not begin to grow unless its seed lands on fertile ground. The social mores of this nation were always decidedly Christian, but were steadily eroding by the beginning of the 20th century (for various reasons). The deeper truth is that people rejected traditional morality because they wanted to be free to indulge their carnal desires without restriction. Transcendent moral values were being replaced with moral relativism, fueled by the notion that man was a higher primate and had no moral responsibilities to a creator, leaving people free to invent whatever style of living pleased them. It was only the world wars that temporarily reversed this trend and brought the nation back together under the banner of an American moral imperative. But the foundation, weakened as it was by radical liberal ideology, was thoroughly rotten. America snapped back like a rubber band, bursting open the flood gates during the 60's, and changing the cultural landscape forever. Now traditional values are viewed as archaic, a throwback to a bygone era, and it is the "new" thing which is touted as "enlightenment".

Yet, this new thing is simply what is old in different packaging. The behavior of human beings today isn't noticeably different from anything that hasn't been tried in countless failed civilizations in the past. The song remains the same, despite the shiny new backdrops. Bible prophecy predicts that knowledge will increase in the last times, but it mentions nothing about wisdom. The human condition hasn't changed; men are ruled by their passions, and no matter how much knowledge they gain, the same mistakes are repeated endlessly. Look at the world today and tell me that isn't true. If humans are learning anything it is something they've always known and loved; rebellion. This is certainly the age of self-glorification, but history will tell you that is nothing new either. You're right in that "the church", ie, the catholic religion, tried to impose (a caricature of) Christian morality on the masses, with horrific results. That is a nightmare any decent person should be awoken from. However, as it pertains to describing the essential human condition, it was entirely correct. Sin is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Human nature is inherently sinful.

Everyone has a different way of describing the problem. Most look to place the blame and hand wave everything on to a particular condition. They say it's because of overpopulation. They say it's because of religion (an atheist favorite). They say it's because of ignorance. They say it's because (insert your favorite reason here). The reality is, it's because human beings are corrupt sinners, and always will be corrupt sinners until the end of time; that's why Jesus Christ came. He came to restore us to right relationship with our Creator. Don't place your faith and trust in man, because man cannot save himself, and all men are headed for a day of judgment. As scripture predicts, there will be a one world government headed by the antichrist, a seven year tribulation where all the world will become deluded and follow after the beast. Those who refuse to love the truth will believe the lie that the antichrist will be selling. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return as the Lord and judge of all the earth. No amount of knowledge will prepare for you that day; only a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

Nice try, Michael Brutsch.>> ^gorillaman:

Sometimes the troll is the good guy. The proper moral response to censorship is obviously to brutally execute the censor, but our culture is so corrupt and weak that isn't often possible, so we're stuck just trying to piss them off as much as possible as a shallow substitute.
I salute this hero, and I hope that if he isn't able to get his life back to order he is at least able to take some sort of violent revenge on his oppressors.

Sometimes the troll is the good guy. The proper moral response to censorship is obviously to brutally execute the censor, but our culture is so corrupt and weak that isn't often possible, so we're stuck just trying to piss them off as much as possible as a shallow substitute.

I salute this hero, and I hope that if he isn't able to get his life back to order he is at least able to take some sort of violent revenge on his oppressors.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

Have you ever read the bible? I've found most critics of the bible haven't actually even read it, much less understood it. Generally, the average atheist will pick through it and find a few things he doesn't like and then turns off his brain at that point. The intellectual scholarship of Christianity is much greater than you understand, and if you studied the bible for an entire lifetime you still wouldn't know everything there is to know that is in it. It is inexaustible.

I'll give you a few reasons why I think the bible is credible. The first two are personal. One, that revelation was given to me about certain facts in the bible, before I ever read or understood it, so that when I did read it, it was instantly confirmed to me as being divinely inspired.

Two, by following the words of Jesus Christ, my life has been completely transformed for the better in every tangible way. I stopped doing many unhealthy things I formally did not have the willpower or inclination to stop doing, and these near instantaneously. There was also a transformation of my character, and a 100 percent cure to any depression that I experienced, that being replaced with joy. None of this was accomplished by hard work on my part; I simply believed in Gods promises and followed His word and it all happened supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. The experience I've had matches the promises to the letter.

Three, the bible accurately describes the human condition. It lays bare the nature of man and describes the fundemental dichotomies of his existence. It accurately predicts human behavior and describes in finite detail the mechanisms that create those behaviors.

Four, the bible accurately describes the moral realm. It shows that right and wrong is intuitive to human nature, being that each of us has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. This matches the universal norms of morality we see in all human civilizations. It also matches my experience, that although humans can justify any kind of behavior, that there is a sense of absolute right and wrong which precedes any intellectual calculation. It further illustrates the moral responsibility we have to our Creator, because sin transgresses His moral law. That the guilty conscience you have is foremost because you have offended a holy God, and the things you think you have gotten away with are really the chains that bind you.

Five, the bible has much fulfilled prophecy, starting with all of the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled hundreds and in some cases over a 1000 years after they were written. There are also prophecies about israel going into captivity at certain times down to the year, the destruction of Jerusalem, the recent reformation of Israel, accurately predicting even the very currency it would be using.

Six, that it is historically accurate, and has been verified by archaelogy literally 10s of thousands of times. The people, places and civilizations in the bible have been confirmed as being real and existing as described, and this over much scoffing and skepticism over the centuries.

Seven, that it contains certain facts about the world that simply could not have been known at the time, such as information about the hydrologic cycle, ocean currents and springs, the right day for circumcision (on the 8th day the chemicals for blod clotting are at their highest peak), that the earth is free floating in space, the uncountable number of stars (at the time they thought that they could put a number to it by counting the ones we can see), etc..or at the most basic, that it says the Universe had a beginning, which science didn't figure out until more recently..and scientists actually used to use their belief in an eternal Universe to discredit the bible..

One of the biggest confirmations was that I received the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms everything Jesus said is true. It is something tangible and is an experiential experience that isn't simply wishful thinking. More than an experience, it is to know God personally, because His Spirit dwells within you.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the person of Jesus Himself. His words outrank by a vast degree any earthly wisdom, and expose the vain philosophies of man as foolish and futile. His words are a fountain of life, living and active, and they set the standard for all human discourse. Indeed, they are the words this civilization is built upon. The transforming power they have had on the world and in the hearts of men is beyond dispute, and direct proof of their pure truth. To follow the example of Jesus is the most difficult thing any person could ever try to do (indeed it is impossible without supernatural help) and it is also the most rewarding (as in eternally). In truth, they are the only words that lead to life. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

So, these are a few reasons I think the bible is credible. What I can tell you is that without the Holy Spirit you will never understand it, because it is truth that comes by supernatural revelation. Feel free to disagree, but I was once in your position, and believed much the same things about the bible. You just cannot imagine how far off you are from understanding it until that veil is removed from your eyes.

>> ^gwiz665

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded 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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

I enjoy some of the animal videos on the sift, and I upvote those. Other than that, as an outspoken bible believing Christian, who is pro-family, pro-life, and as someone who opposes the politically correct left wing agenda, we probably don't have many areas of agreement. It just shows though how insular you are to believe that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have sincere beliefs. Since you know what I am against, I'll tell you what I am for:

I advocate the essential dignity and value of human life, that all people are deserving of equal treatment, and even love. I believe that we should help people who are in need, those who are suffering in the world, that we should be advocates for those who don't have a voice. I believe that cruelty to animals is a quiet holocaust, although, I do not believe animal life is essentially equal to human life. I believe in communities, in working together towards common goals, and that we all have a moral responsibility to participate in civil society and use our God given gifts to benefit our fellow man.

I am sure we can find something to agree upon in there.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Let me get this straight. You find a video with a controversial title posted by a gentleman (using the term most loosely), whose entire time on the sift has been spent trolling. And you think you can actually have a meaningful dialog with the twit?
Get a clue folks...shiny's just here to see how many people he can annoy. Whatever is popular, he's against...whatever is unpopular, he's for. You're wasting your time trying to show him the errors he's propogating. Granted, it's your time to waste...but don't then complain that he's wasting it.