Forum Post: Harry Reid's Racist Comments?
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 10:05 p.m. EST by observerhere
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I rarely encounter anyone who is aware of this, but Senator Harry Reid of Nevada made some of the most strident racial statements against African Americans I ever saw.
He got away with these reprehensible statements and is still in power, which totally baffles me. This openly racist man is still in office and made a mockery out of social justice. If you care about social justice and racial equality, I ask you to join me in spreading these facts about Harry Reid. I ask you to post that link in just one popular forum or chat room. Please do what you can to educate the people of Nevada so that he is exposed. Thank you.
No one cares dude. He will get re-elected, along with every other shit head in DC.
The people wont develop their own candidates and parties. They just let the elites do it for them. And then bitch afterwards.
I understand the sentiment of frustration, but do not underestimate the internet. It is displacing mainstream media and exposing upcoming generations to inspiring ideas. Expect more movements and more momentum.
And expect SOPA
This is very old "news".
His one statement (singular) had more to with how blacks are perceived by the white electorate than any racism on his part, and how that perception would effect the outcome of the election.
Reid also apologized at length for his choice of words, which, although tactless and insensitive, don't register as racist at all. The only stridency here is the OP's characterization of Reid's one single remark.
It's a tempest in a tea pot.
If you want to look at any real racism in congress, just look to a certain Congressman currently running for the presidency from the State of Texas. His ongoing relationships with White Power groups and his statements like "95% of all black men in Washington are criminals" are well known.
I meant to post, "I am skeptical that ending the Fed is a good idea."
I concede my original post was a tempest in the teapot (because the comments by Reid got me fired up) but I disagree with your attempt to attack Ron Paul as a racist.
"His ongoing relationships with White Power groups and his statements like '95% of all black men in Washington are criminals' are well known."
You are talking about the quote from an article titled "How to Protect Yourself Against Violence" that had a missing byline. If you Google "James B Powell" you will find articles in Google News revealing him as a ghost writer. Racism is a form of collectivism. It emphasizes group identity rather than the individual; conversely, individualism is all about the individuals.
Racism and individualism are mutually exclusive and Ron Paul has been preaching individualism for decades.
I will be honest and disclose my views and criticisms of Ron Paul. I support socialized healthcare. I am a Ron Paul fan in the sense that I love his defense of civil liberties, anti-war talk, and honesty. Laissez-faire capitalism scares me. I am not skeptical that ending the Fed is a good idea. I suspect Austrian economics oversimplifies minimum wage and overlooks turnover rates and I know Ron Paul advocates it. But to suggest Ron Paul is racist because of those newsletters is total propaganda.
I appreciate your candor, not to mention your concession. It takes integrity to do that.
RP's ongoing relationships with White power movements is, well, ongoing. As of today, he steadfastly refuses to disassociate himself from them, including StormFront. He has said many racist things I have seen on video: others that have been recorded: no ghostwriter necessary.
I believe you mistake (as does he himself) a defense of civil liberty with a defense of absolute property rights. It was not too long ago that he expressed his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, because, by forcing white restaurant owners to be required to sell black customers food or let them sit inside, it was a violation of that restaurant owner's property rights. Again, no ghost writers: this was a taped conversation.
His statement that 95% of all black men in Washington is one he has never refuted.
I don't share your perception of him as in any way honest. He had dissembled facts, avoided answering direct questions, been a total hypocrite regarding earmarks, has intentionally distorted, and purposefully misrepresented his positions and the truth as a whole. Frankly I have nothing but contempt for his dishonest ass.
And don't be so sure about those newsletters. The voluminous evidence from multiple sources is pretty iron-clad.
Please understand that I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings. I think you have integrity, as evidenced by your retraction alone. I just think you have been badly misinformed.
"He has said many racist things I have seen on video: others that have been recorded: no ghostwriter necessary."
I have never witnessed a video where Ron Paul said anything racist, and the Austin NAACP President (Nelson Linder) who explicitly said Ron Paul is not racist also has not. If Ron really is not racist, I would expect a lot of rumors but no direct footage of him saying anything racist (which is precisely what I have witnessed so far). The typical arguments presented have shamelessly been based on ghost writer hearsay, and like the Austin NAACP President who stated that Ron Paul is a racist, I have not found the arguments compelling. Here is what NAACP President Linder had to say about Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U
"I believe you mistake (as does he himself) a defense of civil liberty with a defense of absolute property rights."
According to what I just quoted from you, Ron Paul himself mistakes civil liberty with a defense of absolutely property rights. If Ron Paul himself mistakes the two, then this particular piece of your argument does not support your conclusion that Ron Paul is racist. Of course, there is still the question of whether or not civil liberty and absolute property rights are mutually exclusive, but either way it is immaterial for the purposes of supporting your conclusion.
"It was not too long ago that he expressed his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, because, by forcing white restaurant owners to be required to sell black customers food or let them sit inside, it was a violation of that restaurant owner's property rights. Again, no ghost writers: this was a taped conversation."
This reminds me of the ACLU taking heat because they defended the KKK's right to march. The ACLU (comprised of many minorities) clearly did not agree with the messages or belief system of the KKK; they just strongly believed in a principle and behaved in accordance with it. A very strong case can be (and has been) made that the ACLU should not have defended the KKK's right to protest, but to just accuse the ACLU of racism because of its consistency with respect to its ideology is utterly preposterous. Similarly, there is no logical entailment that Ron Paul is a racist because he is consistent about property rights of individuals. Ron Paul does not supporting the installation of cameras into houses to prevent racism either. What is next? Should people will accuse him of being racist for that? Again, I never saw any footage of Ron Paul that suggests he is a racist. In fact, when I tried to find footage like that, I found was this compilation of blacks who support Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA
"been a total hypocrite regarding earmarks"
He has been totally consistent regarding earmarks. His position is, and always has been, that allocation of money is more efficient in the private sector and when locally control. He never voted for an earmark, but once he accepted the reality that the money was not going directly back in the wallets of taxpayers, he pushed for more local control over it. I know you have integrity but have been misinformed. The best way to see that these accusations of his inconsistency rest on circular logic is to ask how many earmarks there would be if everyone in Congress was a Ron Paul.
"And don't be so sure about those newsletters. The voluminous evidence from multiple sources is pretty iron-clad."
New evidence is in as of yesterday. The (very likely) ghost writer has been exposed and his name was publicly disclosed after the byline was dug up: James B Powell.
"Please understand that I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings. I think you have integrity, as evidenced by your retraction alone. I just think you have been badly misinformed."
Ditto. I would not feel bad if you disproved me. The philosophic (and scientific) ideal is attaining truth, not trying to feel smart by winning an argument on some online forum.
"RP's ongoing relationships with White power movements is, well, ongoing. As of today, he steadfastly refuses to disassociate himself from them, including StormFront."
RP fervently speaks against the drug wars and rattles off statistics about how the court systems are unfair to minorities. If you want to battle racist groups, then a transfer of their money into the hands of a guy (RP) pushing individualism (the polar opposite of racism) is a beautiful start. I disagree with Ayn Rand's social Darwinism, but I highly, highly suggest that you watch this audio from her book that addressed individualism and racism to see why Ron Paul's philosophy is the polar opposite of racism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeI9NfbfT8