He has published numerous racist articles in his own newsletter under his own name, defended the newsletters in public, was happy to associate with many openly racist figures, and has a history of putting out shyt like that cartoon above. Not to mention that he came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
.
Just two posts ago you adamantly opposed any suggestion of his racism with "I'm pretty sure he's not racist."
When presented with clear cut evidence of him proudly peddling racist propaganda, you pivoted to (paraphrasing here) "He's 80, a staffer must have posted that, he's too old and out of touch to know how to use twitter."
Then when the levees broke on the flood of his history of racist works it was "well, that was a long time ago, he's not racist anymore. He's changed."
(Because of course while old racist white men can't ever learn the nuances of such advanced space age technology of say typing on a keyboard, if it's one thing old people are known for, it's changing their world views of society once they hit their late 60s and early 70s.)
And finally you hit the home stride with the quoted post, settling on the conclusion of "it doesn't matter if he was racist, he was against war."
I good sir, salute you, for your noble ability to disregard any information whatsoever that may counter your previously held positions, defend the indefensible, and juelz with such fervor that would make Mr. Santanna himself hit you with a
Well played my man. Well played.
You said I said he's probably not a racist and then I changed my stance and said ya that tweet was probably a staffer when the latter supports the former, there's no change in stance.
Everything in the kitchen sink in one post???? Must be a small ass sink.
Wait, I pivoted to his stance on war and moved goal posts IN THE SAME POST???????
You posted 3 separate times, with your initial one being "I'm pretty sure he's not a racist.", followed by a separate post dismissing his racism because apparently he's too old to know how to be a racist online 
, and concluding with a diatribe in a separate post about how being a racist doesn't matter because he's against foreign wars. How or why you somehow took that pretty simple to follow chain of events into thinking I said it all happened in one post is pretty strange. Especially since even if it did, what difference would it have made? 
You still don't get it!!
I don't know where you got the suggestion that you moving the goal post all occurred in one post.
You still moved the goalpost either way from Ron ain't racist, to racism is ok anyway if you're against wars......so it doesn't matter if he is racist, but he's not anyway, so whatever.
Are some of you anti-racist or anti-republican?
Because you all will run to this thread to call Ron Paul a racist but then you gonna go cape for:
Joe Biden didn’t just compromise with segregationists. He fought for their cause in schools, experts say.
I once thought that when the anti-war movement disapeared when obama took office maybe the anti-war movement was never an anti-war movement but an anti-republican one.
Is it the same for racism with some of ya'll?
