From http://thinkprogress.org :

Let's see. One website publishes the contents of another website's self-described "highlights" from an alleged newsletter. How about finding the original newsletter and posting the contents here, rather than promoting a slander?

Here is the man's own words: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html,from the same time-period.

Would that be Daily Kos? I am sure you can count on them being honest when it comes to Republicans....ah hell, I couldn't write that whole sentence without cracking up.

__________________
MB-less

It's too long to post here, but it took me about 10 seconds to find it on the website I cited in my previous post: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793 So, knock yourself out.How are you defining "same time period"? The article in which he talks about the criminality of black people was from 1992. You have linked to an article from 2002. More to the point, though, the 2002 article says nothing about whether black people are criminals.

You accuse me of promoting a slander, but you cite nothing to support the accusation. So, who's slandering whom?

This discredited **** again? His ghost writer wrote it, not him.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/is-ron-paul-a-racist.html

My question was how Ron Paul would explain the comments attributed to him. Maybe the answer is the one you propose. If so, then his explanation should include a description of what he did when those controversial words went out under his name.

So, Ron, is that avatar your picture or Ron Paul? (This is not a joke or sarcasm, I am just curious).

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Re: "The Ron Paul Report" archived at the Nizkor Project site -- if the facts related (about the Rodney King case and the ensuring riots) are true, then the conclusions seem pretty reasonable.

I think RP need not be ashamed of this piece, whether he wrote it or someone wrote it for him. Criminals in L.A. rioted for little more than a chance to loot; our media and "leaders" have covered it up and made excuses for the criminals instead of punishing them immediately and appropriately. All true, no?

(And yes, a shotgun blast to a criminal's chest to save your life and your family's, or to protect your property, is appropriate.)
.

__________________
* *
-- Paul W. (The Benzadmiral)
('03 Buick Park Avenue, charcoal/cream)
Formerly:
'97 C230, smoke silver/parchment; '86 420SEL, anthracite/light grey; '84 280CE (W123), dark blue/palomino

I could be wrong, but I think that relatively few voters will agree with you on that.

Thanks for posting the full context, the OP does not seem to care about the true context of his remarks.

read the bold.

Well now,the late reverend Khalid Muhammad referred to himself as a "truth gangsta".

It is not my intention to be divisive nor socially fascistic but you all do a search on the racial makeup of prisons and then come here and shout out your eliesons.

Yes, it is Dr. Paul.

And this highly publicized racial smear campaign took place many months ago, when it was also addressed and put to bed by Dr. Paul. Strange that anyone would show interest in placing it under a spotlight once again, so many months later, especially in light of Dr. Paul's unchanging single-digit poll numbers. I would have believed the country is far more interested in the smear campaign directed against Mr. Huckabee, which I assume is originating from the Romney camp, or the ridiculous smear campaign directed toward Mr. Obama, which originates from the Clinton camp. Politics, you gotta love it......

It's remarkable how you can squeeze so many errors into so few words.

First, GermanStar did not provide any more context than I did. He merely provided some other statements that Paul made that were remotely related to the part I quoted. When he complained that I didn't post the full article, I provided a link to it, even though the link was readily available through my original post.

Second, the "context" provided by GermanStar missed my point. The point of my original question was how a politician overcomes a statement attributed to him that "95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Regardless of how one takes that statement, I think it is a remarkable thing for a politician to say. My guess is that he will be punished by the voters for having said it, so context really has little to do with the point of my post. That is not because I am not interested in context. It is because context is hard to convey to the voters.

Third, you have again accused me of dishonesty. Whenever I have called you on it in the past, you have provided "substantiation" that was completely beside the point. If you would take the time to read what I say, and only what I say, without adding your own interpretations, then you would know that your accusation is baseless. Of course, since we are complete strangers, you should already know that your slur against me is without any basis.

Fourth, you have constantly misinterpreted what I've said. For example, you still don't understand why Bill Clinton's statements in 1998 do not relate to the statements I made about George Bush. You made a good point with those quotes from 1998, and I said so at the time, but the point you made has nothing to do with what I said about W.

Fifth, the moderators have asked us to refrain from personal insults. Why do you disrespect their reasonable request?

So, do you think that Ron Paul's ghost writer excuse will pass muster with the voters? My guess is that he will need a better excuse, but it's only a guess. Calling 95% of the males in Washington, D.C. "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" is generally not a good way to appeal to American voters.