Ron Paul For President in 2008

[Final-Fan]

Okay, Ron Paul is innocent in this case, assuming he didn't read the work going out under his own name. On to the intellectual debate!

You say you need context to decide whether the author was being racist. I assert that it is racist in any context. Can you give an example of a context that passage might be in that would render it non-racist?

BTW: Extra credit for doing it in a piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM"

Once you've done that, see how closely your work matches the actual context:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

Can you honestly vote for a man who would allow that to go out under his own name? Or alternatively, can you honestly vote for a man who allows things to go out under his own name when he has no idea what is being said in them?

[edit: Also:
"Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.)"
[ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 ]