scottfrost:

Ron Paul has argued against racism. He is on record saying that it is collectivist nonsense. He should get the benefit of the doubt.

That's not an argument against racism. That's an argument against "collectivism" and a form of denial that he and his kind could possibly be racists.

Furthermore, it's an easily refuted view. The National Election Survey asks a number of relevant questions, most notably, it asks people about their feelings towards different groups, including Blacks, using a temperature scale from 1-100, as well as asking about their policy views. There is a consistent correlation between more negative views of blacks and opposition to "collectivist" positions. For example (each of the three categories is about 1/3 of the population +/- 4%):

Strongly favoring a government insurance health plan:

0-50% Temp: 16.9
51-75% Temp: 16.3
76-100% Temp: 24.2

Strongly favoring Government seeing to job and good standard of living:

0-50% Temp: 7.2
51-75% Temp: 6.8
76-100% Temp: 18.2

Increase Federal Spending On Poor/Poor People:

0-50% Temp: 43.2
51-75% Temp: 53.1
76-100% Temp: 63.5

Increase Federal Spending On Child Care:

0-50% Temp: 50.0
51-75% Temp: 53.4
76-100% Temp: 65.4

In short, the less you like blacks, the less "collectivist" you are. The exact opposite of how Paul characterizes racism--thus proving conclusively that it's "collectivism" he opposes, not racism.

It is also worth noting that he never advocates any policies which disproportionatley benefit one group at the expense of another. He clearly insists that all people have equal rights.

That's what he claims. But what if you look at who benefits from the things he opposes? Then the picture will clearly show he opposes programs that benefit Blacks and Latinos. But that's all just coincidence, right?

I'm just waiting to hear that some of his best friends are black.