Ron Paul will visit Detroit and Dearborn

**oladub** · February-24-12, 10:33 AM

Ron Paul will be at the venue "Town Hall about "Solving Detroit's Crises"

Little Rock Baptist Church
8801 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, 48202
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM [[ET)

Other Ron Paul Michigan primary campaign stops-

February 25, 2012 - Ron Paul at Central Michigan University Rally
Dr. Paul will speak at the CMU Plachta Auditorium, Central Michigan
University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan on Saturday, February 25th at 6:00 pm
Eastern.
February 26, 2012 - Ron Paul at Rally for Freedom and Jobs in Michigan
Dr. Paul will speak at The Pinnacle Center in metro Grand Rapids, Michigan
on Sunday, February 26th at 4:00 pm Eastern.
February 27, 2012 - Ron Paul at Michigan State University Rally
Dr. Paul will speak at Michigan State University – MSU Auditorium, 149
Auditorium,
East Lansing, Michigan on Monday, February 27th at 4:00 pm Eastern. To
RSVP to
the Michigan State University Rally
February 27, 2012 -Ron Paul at Dearborn’s Ford Community and
Performing Arts Center |
Dr. Ron Paul will speak at Dearborn’s Ford Community and Performing Arts
Center – Michael A. Guido Theater, 15801 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, MI
48126 on Monday, February 27th at 7:00 pm Eastern.

**j to the jeremy** · February-24-12, 11:26 AM

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

**BrushStart** · February-24-12, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

You're thinking of the wrong guy.

**Detroitnerd** · February-24-12, 12:54 PM

“Dude said, ‘Have some brewskis,’ and I’m freakin’, ‘Those are AWESOME! More like it!’”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlb...feature=relmfu

**j to the jeremy** · February-24-12, 01:00 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...-Paul-has-said

A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "

I hope he's ready for some Q&A

**Detroitnerd** · February-24-12, 01:06 PM

He's no Strom Thurmond...

**JBMcB** · February-24-12, 01:42 PM

In other words, ten years ago he disavowed the contents of the letters and said he did not support those passages.

Then, four years ago, he said the same thing.

Now, he's saying the same thing.

So what's the point of bringing it back up? Is there anything more recent than 1989 showing his supposedly innate racism?

Paul wants to reform the judicial system, as he sees it's overly harsh prosecution of drug laws inherently racist. How has Obama's reform of the judicial system been going?

**noise** · February-25-12, 05:23 PM

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

Ron Paul in 2007.

None of that would matter if he strips away personal freedoms in the name of defending individual liberties. This guy is a nutjob.

**Hypestyles** · February-26-12, 02:35 AM

we'll see if he confronts his racist-literature problem head-on or not..

**Dexlin** · February-26-12, 04:54 AM

His [[obvious) racism seems like a sideshow, to me [[I'm black, BTW). What I find more damning about Paul is that he seems to not recognize the reality of how society works in a highly advanced modern world of billions of peoples. You'd have to go back very close to the dawn of civilization to have his worldview work. Either that, or his ideas could only work in very small populations like an Amish village. You're not going to run a nation of 310 million people with computers, and satellites and railroads and freeways and complex waterworks and, well, the list goes on...on a Ron Paul worldview. Sorry.

Yeah, he's ridiculously consistent and when he's on he's on, but it's like a broken clock being correct twice a day. The other twenty-two hours of the day, he's crazy as f%ck, excuse my French. He is simultaneously both the most sensible and the most insane major Republican candidate, and, well, that should tell you something.

**Scottathew** · February-26-12, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

I thought he was scared of non-white people?

No, that's just the rest of the GOP.

I like Ron Paul and agree with quite a bit of his stances. However, some of his policies are just too extreme.

Ron Paul would get the government out of the business of charity and wealth redistribution. He would also get us out of the business of policing the world.

The reason why I voted for Obama, and most likely will vote for him again pending who is nominated, is that Obama promised and delivered on a policy of less war and less US involvement in affairs around the world. Ron Paul would also deliver on this promise.

**Zacha341** · February-26-12, 10:19 AM

I've voted for Ron Paul in the past, as I've agreed with some of his positions and policies, especially with respect to governmental expansion and a few other areas. I once voted a protest vote for his candidacy when I could not hold my nose and vote for the dem or repub 'offerings'.

I will not be voting for him again. He's referenced, championed and endorsed in the white supremacist circles too consistently to be just a one-off thing. He's authored and edited their publications in the past [[withstanding his denials to the contrary). For sure he has a 'google-problem' as his name and comments come up in some very questionable, and extreme web sites.

Originally Posted by BrushStart

You're thinking of the wrong guy.

**EastsideAl** · February-26-12, 11:56 AM

Interesting choice by Ron Paul though. At least it makes him look like he's willing to engage with the fact that a significant percentage of Michigan's population is African-American, which is more than I can say for the rest of the Republican field.

Republicans seem to regularly and openly treat and portray African-American organizations, even long-standing mainstream ones like the NAACP, as pariahs that will somehow infect them with some sort of dark virus should they even deign to appear at one of their events.

This may mean though that he will be [[rightly) called to answer some difficult questions about his past statements and affiliations. Much the same way he has been by Jews and especially Jewish Republicans.

**oladub** · February-26-12, 01:12 PM

I posted this on the non-Detroit side. One respondent pointed out that President Obama did reverse his position of support on SOPA/PIPA although that was after Google and other websites revolted. However, President Obama did sign onto A.C.T.A. which many say is worse than SOPA/PIPA in terms of potentially eroding internet freedom as we know it. The good news, for anyone not voting for Ron Paul, is that if he doesn't get enough delegates to at least erode the influence on neocons in his own Party, any of of the other candidates will assure the status quo support and enhancement of everything on that list for another four years.

**Detroit Stylin** · February-26-12, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I posted this on the non-Detroit side. One respondent pointed out that President Obama did reverse his position of support on SOPA/PIPA although that was after Google and other websites revolted. However, President Obama did sign onto A.C.T.A. which many say is worse than SOPA/PIPA in terms of potentially eroding internet freedom as we know it. The good news, for anyone not voting for Ron Paul, is that if he doesn't get enough delegates to at least erode the influence on neocons in his own Party, any of of the other candidates will assure the status quo support and enhancement of everything on that list for another four years.

And clearly you didnt get this from some unbiased site like "Vote for Ron The South Was Right" Paul correct...

**13074Glenfield** · February-26-12, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

And clearly you didnt get this from some unbiased site like "Vote for Ron The South Was Right" Paul correct...

I'm no Ron Paul supporter... far from it... but there's no such thing as an unbiased site.

**BrushStart** · February-26-12, 11:23 PM

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

**JBMcB** · February-26-12, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by noise

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

I've seen that quote floating around for a while. Where is it from? I can't find the primary source.

I can understand the desire for Ron Paul to be racist. It's a good excuse to avoid voting for someone who is *actually* anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-TSA, etc...

You know, all the things Obama *SHOULD* be, but he's hitched his wagon to the corporatist bandwagon like everyone else. Hold your nose and vote for Obama again, knowing that, as he persecutes more illegal wars, throws more people in jail over the dumb drug war, and installs TSA checkpoints on every cross-state mass transit waypoint [[it's on it's way for Amtrak) I mean, at least he's not a racist, right?

**Dexlin** · February-27-12, 06:23 AM

Ron Paul supporters are so cute. They own the internet and nothing else, but pretend as if they rule the world. Well, back to Dungeons & Dragons with you guys. Maybe, when you neo-Birchers drop your conspiracy theorizing, you'll be able to sit at the adults' table for discussion.

Yeah, the only reason he can't win is because he's being smeared as a racist. Poor Ron Paul. If you could only see how far I'm rolling my eyes. This man was unelectable before the media started paying attention to his newsletters and writings, and he's just as unelectable now. For as bad as Paul can be [[outside of his lucid moments), his supporters are the very. worst. thing. about him, hands down.

The guy down on the corner wearing a shower cap and bathrobe has his own moments of lucidity, too.

**noise** · February-27-12, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I've seen that quote floating around for a while. Where is it from? I can't find the primary source.

I can understand the desire for Ron Paul to be racist. It's a good excuse to avoid voting for someone who is *actually* anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-TSA, etc...

You know, all the things Obama *SHOULD* be, but he's hitched his wagon to the corporatist bandwagon like everyone else. Hold your nose and vote for Obama again, knowing that, as he persecutes more illegal wars, throws more people in jail over the dumb drug war, and installs TSA checkpoints on every cross-state mass transit waypoint [[it's on it's way for Amtrak) I mean, at least he's not a racist, right?

As I recall, it was a reporter from Salon that picked that one up.

In fairness, his racism is only one of his problems as far as I'm concerned. He's talked about repealing the Civil Rights Act. He's pro-life. He doesn't believe in evolution. He would disband the EPA. He's against a minimum wage. No more OSHA.

Overall, even when there's a slightly redeeming quality, it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

**oladub** · February-27-12, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by noise

As I recall, it was a reporter from Salon that picked that one up.

In fairness, his racism is only one of his problems as far as I'm concerned. He's talked about repealing the Civil Rights Act. He's pro-life. He doesn't believe in evolution. He would disband the EPA. He's against a minimum wage. No more OSHA.

Overall, even when there's a slightly redeeming quality, it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

I think that the originator of the 1989 newsletter scandal was James Kirchik a writer for the neocon leaning publication The New Republic. This week's articles, as found in the New Republic, include a call to militarily intervene in Syria and support of Newt. It's insult articles this week are aimed at Santorum and Romney. The New Republic's Ron Paul newsletter article was launched two days before the NH primary in 2008. I believe that the intent was to undermine Ron Paul because the New Republic's greater concern is that Ron Paul doesn't support funding certain factions in Israel or going to war for Israel since that is a major plank in the New Republic agenda.

Ron Paul never talked about "repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964". He objected to a couple of provisions and was, of course, criticized for his honesty and being less than perfectly PC. James Lidner is not a Ron Paul voter but made the following comments to weigh against James Kirchick's twenty year old allegations:

"“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,”“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” -James Lidner NAACP President

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul a campaign ad

Ron Paul is pro-life. He is an OB after all. However, he believes related political decision must be made at the state rather than federal level as dictated by the 10th Amendment. He would get rid of a number of federal agencies or at least some of their functions for the same reason. Every State, for instance, has it's own DOE so why do we need to blow $120B/year to fodder a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington for who are duplicating or interfering with what state DOE's are doing?

I don't mean to suggest not considering the 20 year old newsletter story but I would add it to the above list of NAFTA, wars, police state, and other here and now considerations in this primary and go down the list putting a weight on each one and see where you come up.

You can always vote for Obama in the general election to reward him for blacks losing their homes and jobs in higher percentages than whites and for blacks being given longer sentences under the war on drugs than whites under the Obama administration or for supporting all the things on the above list. What is at stake here though is using your vote to send as many anti-neocon delegates as possible to the Republican national convention. If you want to see fireworks at that convention, vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

**noise** · February-27-12, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I think that the originator of the 1989 newsletter scandal was James Kirchik a writer for the neocon leaning publication The New Republic. This week's articles, as found in the New Republic, include a call to militarily intervene in Syria and support of Newt. It's insult articles this week are aimed at Santorum and Romney. The New Republic's Ron Paul newsletter article was launched two days before the NH primary in 2008. I believe that the intent was to undermine Ron Paul because the New Republic's greater concern is that Ron Paul doesn't support funding certain factions in Israel or going to war for Israel since that is a major plank in the New Republic agenda.

Ron Paul never talked about "repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964". He objected to a couple of provisions and was, of course, criticized for his honesty and being less than perfectly PC. James Lidner is not a Ron Paul voter but made the following comments to weigh against James Kirchick's twenty year old allegations:

"“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,”“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” -James Lidner NAACP President

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul a campaign ad

Ron Paul is pro-life. He is an OB after all. However, he believes related political decision must be made at the state rather than federal level as dictated by the 10th Amendment. He would get rid of a number of federal agencies or at least some of their functions for the same reason. Every State, for instance, has it's own DOE so why do we need to blow $120B/year to fodder a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington for who are duplicating or interfering with what state DOE's are doing?

I don't mean to suggest not considering the 20 year old newsletter story but I would add it to the above list of NAFTA, wars, police state, and other here and now considerations in this primary and go down the list putting a weight on each one and see where you come up.

You can always vote for Obama in the general election to reward him for blacks losing their homes and jobs in higher percentages than whites and for blacks being given longer sentences under the war on drugs than whites under the Obama administration or for supporting all the things on the above list. What is at stake here though is using your vote to send as many anti-neocon delegates as possible to the Republican national convention. If you want to see fireworks at that convention, vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

I was referring to the TSA comment.

You're right about the Civil Rights Act. He only voted against recognizing & honoring it and instead provided his own ideas for why it should not have been enacted.

This changes nearly none of my previous post and it doesn't help his case at all.

**oladub** · February-27-12, 01:01 PM

"I love his message of freedom. I'm tired of all the wars, foreign aid, excess spending and restrictions on our personal liberties." -Lisa Wallace, Hudsonville

Crowds in state give Ron Paul rousing welcome -Detroit News headline 2/27/12

**Cincinnati_Kid** · February-27-12, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Puzzle me this: Why would Ron Paul make a campaign stop in Highland Park, Michigan, which is 93% black and a place he absolutely no chance at winning?

Answer: Ron Paul is not a racist.

"That's what they all say."

**detroitsgwenivere** · February-27-12, 09:30 PM

His rally at Little Rock baptist was one of my many stops today, and I must say it wasn't what i thought it would be, meaning I thought it might be more "right wing." There certainly wasn't any tea partiers dancing around with tea bags hanging off their yankee-doodle hats. Lots of young people with kids, older people, libs and cons, mixed crowd [[mostly white though) and lots of local and national press. The Congressman spoke at length about the erosion of personal liberties, the use of fear and the bad economy to reign in those freedoms, and the existance of racism in the judicial system perpetrated by the war on drugs. One thing I did appreciate, was that all of the questions he answered at the end of his speech were asked by inner city high school kids.

I don't agree with all of his positions, one of them being against unions, but I certainly wouldn't throw the guy under the bus. He's the candidate who's platform began to put the question about auditing of the Federal Reserve into the national spotlight. And the only GOP candidate who isn't tripping over his own face with radical positions on social issues.