|
|
|
kos
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. Is it any wonder that neo-Nazis are flocking to his campaign? But Paul is against the war in Iraq and he wants FREEDOM! So that must make his racism okay. (Follow the link, there's much more.) · :: · Tags: 2008, president, Ron Paul (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions
Permalink | 767 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
· re (51+ / 0-)
A) Copy. B) Paste. C) Email to any friend or relative that send you something positive about this nutjob. "Steve Holt finished third in Iowa!" - Steve Holt by cookiesandmilk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:41:21 AM PST o BUT HE OPPOSES THE IRAQ WAR!!111!! (28+ / 0-)
Bleah.
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § re (10+ / 0-)
AND he raising jillions of dollars on the Internets!!!! I wonder how much of a hit he would take if these truths were more on the surface. There are a couple of tech blogs (individuals with their own companies) that have been constantly posting about Ron Paul and his campaign and fundrasing. I started to ignore them after a couple of Ron Paul posts, since I knew the background, but these two guys, "libertarian" types, and others either are so pissed at everyone that they have not looked into this side of Ron, or they simply choose to ignore it. "Steve Holt finished third in Iowa!" - Steve Holt by cookiesandmilk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:53:18 AM PST [ Parent ] § I think people are choosing to ignore it (10+ / 0-)
like the guy in the coffee shop the other day who was trying to convince me that Ron Paul's racism is just about not giving back "one $500 donation from the Minutemen". Riiiiight. Larry Kissell NC-08 : John Edwards for President by kismet on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:48 AM PST [ Parent ] § How very presidential (0 / 0) choosing to ignore the inconvenient. Like the fact that Iraq
had no WMD's, could not produce a mushroom cloud without a million mushrooms,
and gassed Just ignore that the
guy you want to be president is a nutjob. "To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" Me to GWB c/o Herman Melville by Patriot4peace on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:14:22 PM PST [ Parent ] § Or to claim it's ancient history (4+ / 0-)
Ron Paul acolytes I've heard responding to this sputter on about how it's a character assassination based on out-of-context comments from eons ago. I know, I know, he thought they were cool enough sentiments to put in his own newsletter back then (hard to take that as out of context), and I'd hardly say that 15 years ago is ancient history, but it's what they say, I'm tellin' you. I think it cuts to the broader talking point--how could someone who's so cuddly and liber-progressive-in-Republican-clothes (which is what my Libertarian friends have elevated this guy to be and want him to be, desperately) ultimately have appealed for so long to the right wing in such a reactionary district? He had to speak to the same ultimate ideology as Tom DeLay, and this is just one example of how he did it. by waytac on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:48:57 PM PST [ Parent ] § Damned revisionists... (6+ / 0-)
15 years ago is ancient history... if you're 25! The Paulbot leader is 72; I think he's old enough to be tried as an adult. by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:16:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § At 72, Paul May Well Be Into his 2d Childhood nt (0 / 0) by Empower Ink on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:37:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § THIS IS WHY I QUIT BEING A PARTISAN!!! (4+ / 0-)
As a long time reader, I used to be a huge fan of DKos until they couldn't figure out who our enemies were (neocons) from our allies, anti-war Repugs like Ron Paul. RP speaks the truth and the newsletter was written by a staffer W/O HIS approval. The comments have long been discredited as speaking for Paul. Apparently it takes time for news to reach Kos in his witch hunt against RP. Who knew Kos and the right wing hate site like Little Green Footballs have something in common, hatred of Paul. Dems won't find a better ally in the Repug party than Paul. He is the only one that can split and destroy the party from within. Wake up people! by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:04:28 PM PST [ Parent ] § Please... (0 / 0) Back up your assertions with facts. I mean, even if they're true i'm not voting for him. Why? I've got my reasons. Reams of them, if you must know. But don't come in here making some stupid claim and not even linking to a poorly worded denial, then claim we're somehow lacking vision. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:21:19 PM PST [ Parent ] · Hi ShapeShifter (0 / 0) You answer your own question. First you ask me to back up my argument on behalf of Paul with "facts," then you quickly add even if true I'm not supporting it? Then what's the point of listing the argument only to have you already made up your mind and not listen. The argument's kind of circular, ain't it? Take care and my argument is simple: I like to see more love from Markos to Paul, don't become the very high priest of partisanship that we hate to see in others aka Rush Limbaugh and Bill-O. thanks by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:29:02 PM PST [ Parent ] o Huh? (2+ / 0-)
We've got Paul's own newsletter versus an anonymous commenter's word on it. And since one single reader of your comment isn't going to change his/her mind based on this issue, you're not going to back up your claim? Good luck with that approach. Deranged neoconservative militarism isn't the solution to nuclear proliferation; it's a cause. -- Glenn Greenwald by factbased on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:35:11 PM PST [ Parent ] § PAUL'S OWN NEWSLETTER ARGUMENT DEBUNKED!!! (3+ / 1-)
Alright this "anonymous" writer will now state some facts so you boys can smell some fresh air instead of the same stale recycled lies of partisanship and reflexive demagoguery. (Something you seem to emulate well from your vicious neoconned opponents.) You wanted facts well here it is. And when you still don't believe me, I don't want to have to write another post saying I told you so... Here's my 2cents: Along with the 1992 campaign newsletter, the same writer later accused Houston female lawmaker as "fraud" and "half-educated victimologist." From Wikipedia (SOURCED in the end with relevant links): In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[57] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[32] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[9] So as you can READ: 1. Ron Paul disavowed the newsletter article as not being his words 2. The staffer responsible was immediately fired. 3. Some old style journalistic research by the NY Times showed the newsletter didn't match Paul's writing style. In addition, NY Times is the very publication that tried to smear Paul's good name to allegations of the kind that's popular on the hate site LittleGreenFootballs, about Paul meeting with racists, is a closet wingnut racist. That story was retracted and immediately corrected today: http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/... Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." This old truism seems to be playing out in the case of the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for president. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § Debunked? (2+ / 0-)
Do you know what debunked means? 9 years after the statement was made, and 5 years after he publicly defended the statement, he came out and blamed it on staffer? That is a lame, pathetic explantion, that might win over some of his simpleton supporters, but it certainly isn't a debunking. Meanwhile, Paul is welcoming the support of David Duke and Stormfront leader (and former Klan grand wizard) Don Black. Gandhi would fucking slap you for associating him with a dirtbag like Ron Paul. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:52:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § YES LEARN TO READ D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D (1+ / 1-)
>>Do you know what debunked means? 9 years after the statement was made, and 5 years after he publicly defended the statement, he came out and blamed it on staffer? 9 years later since it only became a a campaign issue by his opponent. When asked about it, he openly said those weren't his statements. Maybe you need to re-read the analysis of those not being his words. Do you liked to be blamed for a redneck leaving a post on your behalf? Much like Markos gets blamed by Bill-O for some horrendous comments left by some on his site under his name? >>Gandhi would fucking slap you for associating him with a dirtbag like Ron Paul. As an Indian, I'm offended by crass vulgar projection of violence on Gandhi. It truly shows how desperately you truly fear liberals turning to the Paul movement. And still notice we don't stoop to your vulgar level of dehumanization. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:28 PM PST [ Parent ] § You may not (2+ / 0-)
use vulgarities, but you support a racist and are working with fellow supporters from Stormfront and David Duke. I'll take being vulgar, thanks. As an Indian, you should really ask yourself why you are ignoring this side of your candidate and making excuses for him. Odd that. How is bringing up someone's past "dehumanizing." Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:46:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § Denied not Debunked (3+ / 0-)
If it were "debunked" that would mean that the statements were untrue. But it is true, the statements were made in the Ron Paul politcial report. All Paul has done is deny that he agreed with the statements and that wasn't until years later. The fact he did not do so immediately says a lot. Also, you seem to think you can "join" with Ron Paul to "split and destroy the Republican party". I think that is foolish and will backfire on you. Ron Paul is a Republican and joining with him is joining with the Republicans and in the end it will only make them stronger. by kpominville on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:24:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § DEBUNKED, kindly reread above post... (0 / 0) They were not Ron Paul's words. by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:44:18 PM PST [ Parent ] § You are a PaulTroll (0 / 0) and I'm TRing you on site. This site is for electing democrats. I am done playing nice with Paulbots. This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it. by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:30:45 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hey user #142682... (4+ / 0-)
If the racist bullshit is sourced back to at least 1992, and the staffer Paul is scapegoating wasn't fired until 1996, AND Paul was willing to let a racist fuckwit write a newsletter under his name, then: § The "staffer responsible" wasn't "immediately fired" § Paul has terrible judgment when it comes to delegating (or he's a liar and you're a gullible toady) 3. You're arguing that a guy who was cool with racism being published under his name until he got called on it four years later should be President because of his, what, moral leadership? Finally, if you think that the "natural allies" of the Democratic Party are to be found in the John Birch Society wing of the Republican Party, then you're an idiot in addition to being a Ron Paul troll. Begone, we're done with
you. The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:44:04 AM PST [ Parent ] § Pimp Ron Paul Elsewhere (0 / 0) This is a site for electing Democrats. Kossacks with spare donuts, please consider feeding your local Ron Paul troll today. It is a much better use than a dem candidate diary ratings war. This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it. by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM PST [ Parent ] o Here's the thing: (2+ / 0-)
You made a claim. Unless you support that claim i have no qualms calling that claim bullshit. However, do not think that is the only thing preventing me from voting for RP--there are many reasons, as i alluded to. There's nothing circular or prejudicial about it. This is the first of many steps that RP supporters would have to go through to secure my vote, but they aren't taking any steps at all. Your argument here is not an argument at all. It borders on concern trolling. Sometimes partisanship is right. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:11:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § WHY I AM NOT A PARTISAN DEM AND WHY RP IS HOPE... (1+ / 0-)
>>sometimes partisanship is right. Sometimes anything is right. Even a clock w/o batteries is right twice a day. >>Your argument
here is not an argument at all. >>It borders on concern trolling. Oh God is there any other word in people partisan dictionary than trolling. I think its the most overrated word and is soon becoming my pet peeve. Partisanship is bad when it makes you blind to the truth or when it prevents you from seeing things objectively. That is why I THANK God as an American Muslim who has seen fellow Muslims suffer the world over that Ron Paul is not the PERFECT CHOICE, but the best one of the field. I disagree with him on immigration, taxes, and Civil War analysis, but hey I appreciate his refreshing views OR ANYTHING that's different than the credibility FauxNews and other MSM lavishes on Neocons like Gaffney, J.Bolton, Steyn, Bill Kristol, etc. etc. He's the only true hopeful that will end foreign entanglements, political allegiance to Israel, and wars at all costs which in my humble opinion is the greatest challenge facing America today. Fix foreign policy then you may have a chance of fixing the economy, repair our superpower status, and regain our status as a moral country not hellbent on building EMPIRE AS Edwards, Obama, and HILLARY all refused to "rule out" (will be in Iraq till 2013!). Best to you! And I really hope as a partisan Dem myself let down by the spineless Pelosi and Reid and incensed by the neocons, helping and supporting the man of principle like Ron Paul will destroy the neocon-hijacked Republican party from within. They declared war on Islamofascists (ie Muslims) and the best Muslims could do is help see it divided and destroyed not only for our survival (Iran next?) but for the future of America and its economic prosperity which is in great danger.... by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:50:36 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hey (0 / 0) This is a partisan Democratic site. As I keep saying, I suggest going to DavidDuke.com or Stormfront, where you will get a much warmer reception than you are getting here. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:25 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hey right back! (0 / 0) I don't need your affection or reception to tell you the stinging truth. I may even get banned from the site for not parroting the blind partisan neo-liberal commentary, but guess what? Self-rigteous nerds parroting their blind views in an echo chambers don't win elections. Alliance building and holding your party will have a big tent will. Besides if I register with Duke'ems who will be here to give you hell? Remember great thoughts only arise when views are vigorously debated that challenges your traditional world views. Not that you're interested in that Doldums. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:29 PM PST [ Parent ] § Funny stuff (0 / 0) Well the Paultards here sure aren't generating much in the way of great thoughts. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:38 PM PST [ Parent ] § Funny? Still laughing it off like Hillary I see? (1+ / 0-)
Seem to be generating much more than the ad hominem attacks you seem to spewing. "Paultards?" "aPAULling" "Paulistinians?" Don't you seem it ironic that pro-Paul people are hated by both the neocons and neolibs, esp. considering many like me used to be great admirers of Markos and his blog... A wise one once said quote: "Stand up for justice, even if it maybe against own yourself." And I think nothing sums up breaking the mental tribal bondage better than that. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:16:56 PM PST [ Parent ] § . (0 / 0)
The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:46:16 AM PST [ Parent ] § Hah! Oh you want to start this, huh? (2+ / 0-)
Sometimes anything is right. Even a clock w/o batteries is right twice a day. Which is funny, because that's exactly how i would describe Ron Paul. Go ahead, tell me again how Democrats should play nice with the Republican murder machine. I dare you. Because the alternative... well, that's called "partisanship". Oh God is there any other word in people partisan dictionary than trolling. I think its the most overrated word and is soon becoming my pet peeve. Maybe you don't realize, but... Well... Should i use "flamebait" instead? Partisanship is bad when it makes you blind to the truth or when it prevents you from seeing things objectively. Please show that this is happening here. That is why I THANK God as an American Muslim who has seen fellow Muslims suffer the world over that Ron Paul is not the PERFECT CHOICE, but the best one of the field. Better than... i don't know, Chris Dodd? Fix foreign policy then you may have a chance of fixing the economy... I don't really see how our economic woes are the result of our foreign police. They are a result of mismanagement, intentional and otherwise. Ron Paul wouldn't fix that: he has explicitly stated he doesn't believe in government management of the economy at all. So that's not really a solution, is it? ...Edwards, Obama, and HILLARY all refused to "rule out" (will be in Iraq till 2013!). There are more than three Democrats running, or did you forget? If you've dedicated your attention to a longshot candidate (nothing wrong with that, necessarily) then what's wrong with (ie) Dodd? Dodd's proposal: Withdrawals begin immediately, ending in 8-10 months after he takes office. Just FYI. And I really hope as a partisan Dem myself let down by the spineless Pelosi and Reid... We can do something about that. (I don't see why we aren't, to be honest.) Dodd (not to sound like a Dodd partisan here) almost won the leadership position vs. Reid the last time, if i remember correctly. Ron Paul will destroy the neocon-hijacked Republican party from within... Ron Paul is not exactly that much of a radical. He's really a fairly typical--if extreme--Republican. In the same mold as people like Tancredo or Pat Buchanan. Not the same on all specific ideas (though pretty close) but the same type of Republican. He won't destroy them, he'll just replace them at the top. Which is, of course, why he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting through the primary. They will destroy him. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:03:17 AM PST [ Parent ] o kos doesn't tell us who to vote for (1+ / 0-)
the way Rushbo tells his fans who to vote for. there's no comparison. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:43:31 PM PST [ Parent ] o Are you really this stupid? (0 / 0) First you ask me to back up my argument on behalf of Paul with "facts," then you quickly add even if true I'm not supporting it? Then what's the point of listing the argument only to have you already made up your mind and not listen. The argument's kind of circular, ain't it? Even if RP isn't a racist, Shapeshifter isn't voting for him for reams of other reasons. That isn't circular, moron. Never mind, if you're planning on voting for anti-science anti-separation-of-church-and-state Ron Paul, you must be very stupid indeed. by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:41:19 PM PST [ Parent ] § Name calling, the last resort of a scoundrel (0 / 0) As a Democratic Paulite, why am I not surprised? by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:32:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § "name calling" can be accurate (0 / 0) And it's not my last resort; with people as stupid as you, I'm pretty up front with it. by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:17:04 PM PST [ Parent ] · wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
Back up your assertions with facts. Yes, as the URL implies, this was a 1996 controversy. dKos has had two duplicate front page stories on it lately pretending like it's breaking news. by tjw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:21:02 PM PST [ Parent ] o Interesting... (3+ / 0-)
I had never heard he repudiated those views even slightly. Even so, how precisely can he reasonably suggest he was not responsible for the content of his own newsletter? Pinning the blame on a ghostwriter is all well and good, except that the ghostwriter(s) wrote a whole hell of a lot and he also kept publishing them. Saying "a ghostwriter did it" does not absolve you! Also, who was the ghostwriter and where did RP come up with said ghostwriter? Like, when i hire someone to write political commentary for me i don't expect them to write that kind of thing. In fact, i kind of expect that they don't. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:10 PM PST [ Parent ] § You ever heard of a hiring wrong ppl? (3+ / 0-)
I believe RP hired a guy named Eric Dondero and after they fired him he became disgruntled and went on a crusade to "expose him." Every now and then he resurfaces and leaves scathing rebukes on various websites and Timmy Russert even quoted him last Sunday on MTP in a feeble attempt at being "tough interviewer." So next time you see ERIC DONDERO... hide your children. by rednova on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § Sure, you can make a mistake in hiring... (0 / 0) But... uh... I mean, RP still had control here. This was still his newsletter and he was still publishing it. If RP didn't agree with what he was writing then why did he continue--for quite some time, as i understand it--to fund the whole thing? The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:50:31 AM PST [ Parent ] § Paul Troll On Site (0 / 0) This TR has nothing to do with this specific comment and everything to do with the fact that youve come to this site with the sole intent to pimp Ron Paul. Anyone want to unrate, please check out The Purpose of This Website. This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it. by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:36:27 PM PST [ Parent ] § Quit being a troll. (0 / 0) Ron Paul is a "pro-life" anti-evolution pro-greed nutjob. Unless he hasn't told the truth about his views. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:53:28 PM PST [ Parent ] · ACCUSING PPL OF BEING TROLLS IS THE BEST YOU GOT? (1+ / 0-)
Anyone who doesn't toe your line of reasoning is a "troll?" I see...kinda of like the racist anti-Arab blogs like LFG, HotAir, Powerline, RedState, et. al. who don't toe their line? This is EXACTLY why I never bothered registering as a Democrat (first they don't got the balls to oppose anything AS AN OPPOSITION PARTY) then they try to smear a good man who actually takes on his own right-wing, neocon hijacked party. As a former Dem in the great state of NJ, I'll be voting for the good Doctor, not because I agree with 100% of what he says, BUT B/C he stands up for what he believes in (Obama), doesn't lie (Hillary), or pander to the most vile of pro-Israeli party like (Edwards, Biden, Dodd and ALL Repugs). Only Kucinich would merit my respect more than Paul, but he's also character assassinated by our good pal Kos as a "nut" who sees UFOs. I rather have a nut who ends wars and is not beholden to Israel-first groups then repeat wars as Hillary would against Iran, Syria, Lebanon... and we progressives wonder why Dem don't have the backbone. WELL STOP SUPPORTING THEM!!! by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:24:31 PM PST [ Parent ] o BWAHAHAHA! (1+ / 0-)
we progressives I'll be voting for the good Doctor
The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:48:41 AM PST [ Parent ] o Blanket attacks on Dkos are trolling, by defintn (0 / 0) "I used to be a huge fan of DKos until they couldn't figure out who our enemies were" Who is "they", dipshit? by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:37:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § VULGARITY AT ITS FINEST! (0 / 0) Funny you ask who "they" are while it is I who you accuse of being a "dipsh!t?" When will people learn??? by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:42:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § My lord you are dumb. (0 / 0) DKos is a blog, not a "they", and a blog isn't the sort of thing that can figure things out. And what sort of baby are you, that you can't spell out "dipshit"? Adults use vulgarity as a matter of course; only children giggle and point fingers when they here it, fuckhead. by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM PST [ Parent ] § LOL (0 / 0) Ron Paul is far and away the biggest liar in congress. And if you are really stupid enough to believe that Paul's decade later excuse for his racist newsletter absolves him, I am surprised you can dress yourself, much less use a computer. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:39:08 PM PST [ Parent ] · That's right RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT. (1+ / 0-)
Wow. You must feel good now in your self-deprecating attacks against Paul and for your ad hominem low blows: "I'm surprised you can dress yourself much less use a computer?" I can say, "and people stupid enough to be like you shouldn't be allowed to vote" , but we realize that you need lies to cling on to your partisan ways. I no less don't need clining. I'm a progressive and proud of it, and one who WILL BE VOTING FOR DR. RON PAUL IN MY NJ PRIMARIES as someone who best represents my views and stands up for the Constitution, you know the document you swear your life and allegiance to uphold and protect! I don't apologize to you or your self-righteous ilk. Best to you and your kind. You do what you have to do to get HIllary elected and I'll do what I can for my candidate. Respectfully yours, by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:50 PM PST [ Parent ] o LOL (0 / 0) Ron Paul doesn't support the constitution. He supports a fucked up interpretation that doesn't remotely resemble the constitution. Anyway, David Duke and company thank you for your support of their candidate. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:08:15 PM PST [ Parent ] § AH THE GREAT SMEAR OF LINK BY ASSOCIATION. (0 / 0) I don't need David Duke to thank me. I think Bill-O tried to pull that one against the DKos, smear by association. The last refuge of a scoundrel. Besides these are serious issues and you laughing too often and out loud as replies to my posts seem creepily like Hillary. You're beginning to freak me out. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:55 PM PST [ Parent ] § Nope (0 / 0) the link by association is a smear if it only goes one way. Paul welcomes the support of David Duke and the nazis at Stormfront. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:42 PM PST [ Parent ] § Yup (0+ / 1-)
You repeat yourself as often if not more than a parrot wanting a cracker. That still doesn't make your smears and lie against an honest man any truthful. Nice try, keep trying. by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:23 PM PST [ Parent ] § Since you're out of your gourd... (3+ / 0-)
STUFFED ACORN SQUASH 4 acorn squash Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Cut tops off the squash and remove innards. In a large skillet, sweat celery, onion and carrot until soft. Add egg whites and stir until scrambled. Add vinegar and cook until evaporated. Add rice and pine nuts and stir to combine. Salt and pepper to taste. Loosely stuff the acorn squash until just brimming, then replace the tops. Place on baking sheet and put on center rack for around 1 hour, until the sides give easily to pressure. Enjoy with chilled pinot grigio or moscato (and, for the Ron Paul supporters out there, put the glue bottle away while consuming, as the scent could easily confuse your palate). The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:55:25 AM PST [ Parent ] § LOL, THE GOOD OLD RECIPE TRICK??? (0 / 0) Crass, robotic, and takes no intellect. Quite the reflection of an intellectually hollow opponent who is blinded by meager partisanship. by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:36:33 PM PST [ Parent ] § If you love Ron Paul so much.. (1+ / 0-)
why dont you marry him? Oh that's right, RP doesnt want LGBTs to marry. This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it. by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:41 PM PST [ Parent ] § R U SERIOUS? (0 / 0) Boy and I thought LGF wackos were nutty? by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:37:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § No, he wasn't serious, moron. (0 / 0) Can people really get that stupid? by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:23:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § Interesting point of view (1+ / 0-)
The neocons could be stifling RP along with pumping up Obama (see L C Johnson diary in the Rec list tonight.) On the other hand, if RP does think and speak that way at least he's upfront about it. You can't say that about about any other Rep except McCain (the upfront-ness that is, not the racist shit). "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman by RUKind on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary, either (1+ / 0-)
The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § Even if I buy that 'it isn't his words' bit... (0 / 0) ...you have to admit, that's a pretty king-sized liability. Hell, people wrung their hands over Bill Clinton smoking pot 30 years previously, for chrissakes (even if he didn't, you know, inh....well, anyways). And having to take the 'it's not his words' argument requires a credulity-straining leap of faith close to the 'OJ didn't do it and is out looking for the real killers' extreme. And fyi I did take as objective a look as I could at RP (to understand him, or try)--some of the partisans I mention are very very close friends of mine and will remain as much, gold standard advocacy notwithstanding :). So, ah....watch what you're calling assassin there, eh buddy? And in that spirit, my biggest issue with Paul isn't flyers from the 90's that rather disturbingly piqued the fascination of the Stormwatch bunch--I understand the technical argument that in and of itself, RP can't control that. My biggest issue is his voting record. It simply stenches of hardcore Christian-right dreck, and reflects nothing of what I admire about Libertarians (and there are a few things). I don't know a true libertarian who would vote for DOMA. RP was passionate about it. How does that compute? There's tons more examples. See, the problem is the flyers-n-newsletters issue aligns with his voting record to create an indelible print which seems parsecs from being Naderesque (or even Perotique!), and not Libertarian in any way I want to respect the word. If you're actually not a RP-bot but just a Paul supporter, I wouldn't mind a thoughtful discourse with you on these issues. by waytac on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM PST [ Parent ] § No--most don't know it (3+ / 0-)
I read the leftist blogs almost daily and this is the first time I've seen this quote. Thanks for the source, and completeness of it. I've been one of those impressed by what he says on the war in the debates and when interviewed--I've never heard him say anything on race. So call me newly informed, but don't assume I and others like me are willing to overlook shit like this. I'll happily call him a racist nutjob and be glad he has no chance in the elections, but I'LL STILL SAY I WISH THE DEMS WOULD SPEAK LIKE HIM ABOUT THE WAR AND MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX--because he's clearly a creep in many areas who happens to also be right on some. I'm glad he has the podium to actually voice the truths most Dems don't speak for fear of sounding paranoid (ie, that the gov't is in bed with the medical and communications industries as well as the military contractors). So I can STILL be glad some one is voicing these ideas. Keep speaking, Ron, and I'll keep being glad you speak on this stuff AND that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell to be elected. And whenever I praise your foreign policy remarks, from now on I'll be sure to insert "though a completely racist nutjob" first. by MmeVoltaire on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:31:15 PM PST [ Parent ] § Somebody post this at Digg (1+ / 0-)
That site is full of RP supporters. by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM PST [ Parent ] § I've been banned 7 times from digg (3+ / 0-)
for posting anti-Ron Paul material. I posted this exact link that Kos has 7 weeks ago, and was banned. then created a new account and submitted the remaining parts of this and was banned. by iliketodrum on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:55:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § RE: I've been banned 7 times from digg.. (0 / 0) Of course you'd be. Posting false accusatory and libelous accusations against Paul is just not right. We wouldn't tolerate smears if it was done against Obama attending a madrassa, then why would you accept smears against a good man who has NOT ONE IOTA of racist bone in his body? The NYTimes also dug similar dirt against Paul like Kos but quickly recanted and retracted the story for its inaccuracies. Here's the link: http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/... by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:33:54 PM PST [ Parent ] § Reddit, also. (2+ / 0-)
Shame that a good two thirds of them seem to be too young to remember a government other than Bush. It's hard to argue government isn't inherently flawed when the only point of reference the people you're arguing with have never witnessed non-flawed government. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:23:16 PM PST [ Parent ] § I guess Norquist's dream is coming true (2+ / 0-)
By cutting funding for agencies like FEMA, and by creating a police state, Bush is creating more libertarians, especially for a site like Digg. by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:44:24 PM PST [ Parent ] § Or... (0 / 0) They're secretly on board, but can't admit that in "public" (public being the computer nerd public, which is generally pretty tolerant.) On certain tech-oriented websites i have had to get into arguments about whether or not RP has the right idea regarding race. Considering 90% of the RP fans have no idea about his views on race that gets pretty ugly... The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:18:04 PM PST [ Parent ] § I think that would be strike one (4+ / 0-)
to a lot of the folks claiming to support him. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:56:28 AM PST [ Parent ] § Strike one HELL!! (7+ / 0-)
Tossed out of the friggin game Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic. by beaukitty on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:13 AM PST [ Parent ] § Unfortunately (7+ / 0-)
This would be a point in Paul's favor with my brother-in-law, unfortunately. I love my husband, but I'm so-o-o-o-o glad the holidays are over and I don't have to listen to his relatives for a while... by Nina Katarina on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:37:17 AM PST [ Parent ] § So Paul is an overt racist... (5+ / 0-)
...as opposed to the covert rescists he is running against for the GOP nomination. by Randall Sherman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:22:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hey, there's a great slogan! (10+ / 0-)
"Vote for [REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE HERE] -- at least his racism is covert!" by Finck II on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:30:14 PM PST [ Parent ] § And he opposed the Civil War.......! (10+ / 0-)
And showed an appalling lack of knowledge about history when he yammers on about Yankees just buying the slaves. Gosh, why didn't anyone think of it at the time? So simple. Just like him and his herd. it tastes like burning... by eastvan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:29:07 PM PST [ Parent ] § And he REALLY hated the results! (6+ / 0-)
by Finck II on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:30:52 PM PST [ Parent ] § Ron Paul's Slavery Plan (5+ / 0-)
§ Ron Paul: "Hello, Mr Slaveholder, I am President Ron Paul and I would like to buy your slaves and set them free." § Beauregard T. Slaveholder: "Well, that's mighty white of you Mr. Paul. Mah price is $10,000,000 per head. Cash only." 3. ??? 4. Profit!!! by jfadden on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:12:20 PM PST [ Parent ] § actually the British paid their (0 / 0) slaveowners to stop being a nuissance in 1833, 29 years before the War Between the States began in 1865. I'm all for colorfully denigrating mendacious and ignorant politicians, but facts are facts. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:15:32 AM PST [ Parent ] o THANK YOU, KOS!!!! (33+ / 0-)
I have been posting that information in comments for weeks now! I can't believe how many people in this community are ready to embrace this guy because of his anti-war stance and because Dennis Kucinich likes him. People just seem to shrug off this guy's blatant, horrific intolerance. Kucinich is out of his mind for even entertaining the notion of this a**hole as a potential running mate! People: Ron Paul is a straight up racist. I make no distinction between him and those who support him. "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:50:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yeah, but... (5+ / 0-)
to per the dodge he used in his appearance on Meet the Press, racism isn't in his platform. So it doesn't count, see? "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:59:13 AM PST [ Parent ] § Speaking of MTP (18+ / 0-)
The guy actually espouses that idea that the U.S. government should have purchased the slaves during the Civil War, then set them free. Paul/Duke '08! "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:09:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yeah, a real maverick, (3+ / 0-)
and you knoooows how we looooves our mavericks. Another curious thing about that MTP performance: he said that, yes, he does believe that the US government is now "soft" facist. The media response? At least as far as I've been able to discern: crickets. Rawstory and some blogs picked it up, but none of the major corporate media. Can you imagine the same non-response if any of the Democratic contenders were to say the same thing? "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § I don't know what the response would be... (0 / 0) If a democrat had made such a claim. It's entirely possible it would be as you say. Was he wrong to make the claim, do you wish he hadn't said it? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:33:38 AM PST [ Parent ] § No, I agree with the remark. (2+ / 0-)
Not sure about the "soft" part, in light of dead habeas corpus, the surveillance state, torture, and "renditions" (aka: disappearances, kidnappings), but there can be little doubt that big capital and big government are tightly interlocked. So, no, he was not wrong to make the claim. My comment came out of my observation of the apparent non-response by the BM (big media). "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:28:58 PM PST [ Parent ] § Soft is probably a good description. (2+ / 0-)
We don't exactly have the gestapo here yet, or the death camps. My comment came out of my observation of the apparent non-response by the BM (big media). There is another interpretation, feel free to think it less plausible. The media was afraid that if repeated or had attention been drawn to it, that it'd be so obvious to everyone listening that no denial would be possible. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:45:00 PM PST [ Parent ] § "Soft" works. (1+ / 0-)
Or just "fascism" or, more transparently descriptive, "corporatism." Another reason for the apparent lack of interest could just be the holiday slows. "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:28:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § well, (7+ / 0-)
compensated emancipation was done, successfully and without bloodshed, in many other places. Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41 by jimsaco on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:10:46 AM PST [ Parent ] § Ugh (5+ / 0-)
Please. Defend a racist someplace else. "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:16:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § which defeats his point how? (5+ / 0-)
Are you saying that compensated emancipation didn't/doesn't work? The true measure of a mans character lies not in how he treats his friends, but in how he treats his enemies. by FunkyEntropy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM PST [ Parent ] �� You don't get it, do you? (12+ / 0-)
So, are you okay with new owners of human chattel doing as they please with their purchases, up to and including emancipation, as long as previous owners are financially compensated? How did those previous owners come to own humans? Do you think it was okay to own humans because it was legal at the time? by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:51 AM PST [ Parent ] § Thanks, beets (5+ / 0-)
I don't have the energy or patience to argue with these Paul defenders anymore. Finding a silver lining in slave owning. Is this really happening on DKos???? "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:32 AM PST [ Parent ] § I wondered when the Paulbots would show up here (1+ / 0-)
they are certainly all over C-Span and all the talk shows. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM PST [ Parent ] § Uh. (2+ / 0-)
Suppose that for whatver reason, you are a slaveowner in 1830 Georgia. What is the only possible morally correct path at that point? Mind you, you've been immoral up to this point, but suddenly through some epiphany or maybe a more considered enlightenment, you see the error of your ways. Does freeing your slave(s) somehow fall into exercising slavery over them again, making it some sort of inescapable immorality trap? Now, take it a step further. Someone you know is the slaveowner, not you. You want to convince them to free their slave. There are 3 tools at your disposal, reasoning with them, bribing them, or killing them. In which order would you choose to do those things? A) Reason, kill them,
no bribery Historically, we chose A. If we could do it all over again, I'd try C. Most people here seem to want to choose D, though. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § typical libertarian understanding of history and (0 / 0) human behavior. I notice that the 14th amendment isn't among your options. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:59:22 PM PST [ Parent ] § it is a matter of historical FACT, (6+ / 4-)
that compensated emancipation worked successfully and without bloodshed in many other places. You can plug your ears and go lalala if you want, but that doesn't make it any less a fact. I'm saying it was the least bad option. 600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way. But look -- here we are arguing about the War of Northern Aggression. When we've dumped a trillion dollars into the sands of the Middle East, with no end in sight. With $9 trillion in debt. 45 million without health insurance. What are the real priorities? Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41 by jimsaco on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:50:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § Doing it Lincoln's way? (16+ / 0-)
And the War of Northern Aggression?!? You're one of those who still "hears the guns" and has romanticized it, aren't you? It was a civil war and it was started when South Carolina decided secession was a great way to preserve the South's "peculiar institution" otherwise known as slavery! Phrase it any way you want and it's still just BS. Yeah let's blame Lincoln for the very few priveleged landholders in the South who wanted to continue to deny the humanity of African-Americans. You people make me sick! Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:26:23 PM PST [ Parent ] § inappropriate trollrating (1+ / 0-)
while I agree with you on this point, namely, that it was the South that started armed hostilities, jimsaco's post did not deserve to be troll-rated. by wilderness voice on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM PST [ Parent ] · Not from what I can tell. (3+ / 0-)
Saying anything that isn't lockstep with the democraticness de jour, you get troll-rated. This place isn't about fostering debate and discovering new solutions, it's a propaganda mill. Anyone that says anything out of line with the propaganda gets what they get. Simple as that. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:09:15 PM PST [ Parent ] o You're the one with the propaganda (8+ / 0-)
The War of Northern Aggression, yeah right! I've lived in the South and that is code talk for Racist BS. They used that in Richmond when they tried to keep a monument of Lincoln off Monument Boulevard but strange how all the confederate Generals had monuments! Spare me! Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:55:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § Um. (2+ / 0-)
I never used the term "war of northern aggression". Are you confusing me with someone else? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:56:58 PM PST [ Parent ] § Sorry (3+ / 0-)
that was meant as a reply to jimsaco and I don't know how it ended up under your comment. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:10:42 PM PST [ Parent ] § It's the ajaxy comment post thing. (2+ / 0-)
Screws up for me too. No need to apologize. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:12 PM PST [ Parent ] · Arguing That The Profiteers Of Free Slave Labor, (7+ / 0-)
should be compensated and made even richer, may not be Trollable to you, but it sure is to a lot of us. Go figure! Additionally, the comment really advocates a Lincoln surrender to the Confederacy. Lincoln's war was for "Union," not for the abolition of Slavery, until the very end of the Civil War. In my estimation, this is a post is a lie, that advocates treason and is motivated solely by Racial superiority and compassion for Slave Owners instead of the Enslaved. That makes it exceedingly Troll-worthy. by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:54:14 PM PST [ Parent ] o This post has nothing to do (2+ / 0-)
with either treason or racial superiority. It has to do with an alternate theory of how the Civil War could have been avoided. Disagree if you will (again, I do not think it would have worked), but you are reading something into this that is not there. Therefore, TR is not appropriate. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Lincoln Buying Slaves Is Your "Alternate Theory" (5+ / 0-)
that would have averted War? And racial superiority had nothing to do with the Civil War, why the South seceded, or why Lincoln refused until the end to even acknowledge they were fighting to free the Slaves? And to top it all off, the South was not either traitorous or treasonous, in it's secession from, and War against the United States. OK! I get it now! by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:12:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § That's not MY alternate theory (2+ / 0-)
but a theory posted by the user above. And where do you see that I said that racial superiority or treason had nothing to do with the Civil War? You seemed to be responding to the idea of buying the slaves to avert the war having something to do with racial superiority and treason. That's what I was responding to. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:17:15 PM PST [ Parent ] § Here's What You Said: (3+ / 0-)
This post has nothing to do with either treason or racial superiority. It has to do with an alternate theory of how the Civil War could have been avoided. Disagree if you will (again, I do not think it would have worked), but you are reading something into this that is not there. Therefore, TR is not appropriate. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM PST Sounds like defending Pauls' and the commenter's proposal of re-buying of Slaves as an alternate to the Civil War, or you're saying the original comment is not. Which one is it? by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:08 PM PST [ Parent ] § I was saying (1+ / 0-)
that I don't agree that buying the slaves would have avoided the Civil War. This is what I was referring to that compensated emancipation worked successfully and without bloodshed in many other places. You can plug your ears and go lalala if you want, but that doesn't make it any less a fact. I'm saying it was the least bad option. 600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way. This was jimsaco's post. Based on my knowledge, the differences between the North and the South were way too deep to avoid the conflict with this solution. I'm not sure what you think I meant, but this is exactly what I was referring to, nothing more. Believe what you will. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:36:42 PM PST [ Parent ] § Where Did "Compensated Emancipation" Work? (4+ / 0-)
Show us! Second point, you two are the ones plugging your ears. You can't propose to re-buy People enslaved because they were Black and divorce it from how they came to be Enslaved. You wouldn't even try, if the situation were reversed. Third, you're blaming Lincoln, solely: "600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way." I'm done. Goodnight! by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:46:24 PM PST [ Parent ] § Dude (2+ / 0-)
run away if you have to, but I AM NOT THE ONE who said it worked some places. I'd never even heard of that before this discussion, and if you read my last post, you'd see that I don't think it would have worked. On your second point, I'm not trying to divorce it from anything, and that would hold true no matter who it was that was enslaved. Third, I'm the last one who would blame Lincoln for the Civil War. I greatly admire the man, always have, for the tough choices he had to make. It had to weigh on him greatly knowing what would transpire. I think you need to do some more reading on the subject. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:52:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § youre dealing with anti-intellectual yahoos n/t (1+ / 0-)
by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:07:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § Great Britain or the English empire (4+ / 0-)
slaveowners got a percentage of the "value" of their slaves. The Whigs like MacCaulay, who desparately wanted slavery abolished, thought it was a price worth paying or compromise worth making to get slavery abolished a lot sooner. by livy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:47:40 PM PST [ Parent ] § Try Some Facts About What Happened In The US... (2+ / 0-)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Slavery was an American cancer, and it had to be cut out, or else it would have killed us all. Freehling is not Pollyannaish, however: Slavery may be gone, surgically removed long ago, but its underlying racism afflicts us still. "Southerners called their cornerstone establishment the Peculiar Institution," Freehling writes. "The peculiarity lay not in enslavement itself (a most unpeculiar institution in almost every human culture's history). Rather, the oddity lay in the entrenchment of the New World's most powerful slavery system inside the Western World's most egalitarian (for whites) republic." In the end, liberty and hypocrisy could not forever co-exist, but what drove Edmund Ruffin to yank the lanyard that fired his Columbian cannon in the dim early hours of April 12, 1861, drives some Americans even now. We just watched warmongering yahoos march this nation into a bogus and catastrophic war in Iraq and your comment suggests to me that you have exorcised the fevered passions of the antebellum ideologues from your "objective" assessment of, what I'd characterize as unrealistic and unrealizable, "efficiencies." "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54 by majcmb1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:30:51 PM PST [ Parent ] · I personally believe (0 / 0) that we'd have a LOT less racism in this country if we'd paid the slaveowners to go away rather than fought a war. Before the Civil War, IRISH immigrants, and NOT slaves were at the bottom of the economic pyramid. When canals had to be dug to tow boats on, doing so was deemed to dangerous and hard for slaves, and entrusted to Irish fresh off the boat, and desperate for their daily bread. When Lincoln's successors freed the slaves overnight, and then let only carpetbaggers and freed slaves vote in the South, they CREATED the us vs. them racism, whose loathsome vestiges still haunt the South. When everyone was enfranchised, the South's African-Americans were regrettably left holding the bag. I deplore racism, and deplore slavery, but I believe Dr. Paul is right; Abraham Lincoln was one of those politicians wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. by livy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:03 PM PST [ Parent ] o "carrying a cross"? Lincoln was an atheist. n/t (0 / 0) by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:32:29 PM PST [ Parent ] § but the abolitionists, (0 / 0) his stormtroopers, weren't atheists, but rather generally fanatical Protestants. by livy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:42:56 AM PST [ Parent ] § "compensated empancipation" (0 / 0) or paying slaveowners to stop being a cankersore in the body politic worked in Brazil, the British Empire and the Spanish Empire. In other words, just about everywhere. Now if only India would abolish wagebondage. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:26:52 AM PST [ Parent ] o Thanks! n/t (2+ / 0-)
Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:07:54 PM PST [ Parent ] o Then a lot of you suck. (0 / 0) I disagree with jimsaco, but trollrating his comment is a violation of dKos policy. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:03:16 PM PST [ Parent ] · Agreed with that (1+ / 0-)
You may not agree with the statements (I sure don't), but this is not worthy of a TR. Uprated to counter. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:00:46 PM PST [ Parent ] · I beg to differ (0 / 0) I think the one who made the racist statement deserves the lecture! A TR here or there( that you disagree with) is just a TR. A racist statement about human beings and slavery well that is responsible for an incredible amount of human suffering over the centuries! I'll stand by the TR... Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:29:36 PM PST [ Parent ] § Someone really ought to... (3+ / 0-)
Write an online history of the civil war, with... i don't know, verifiable facts and history and stuff. Far too many people seem to have been taught a version of the civil war in school where the North shot first and the war was completely about the North being pricks and nothing else. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:33:36 PM PST [ Parent ] · The Gone with the Wind view (2+ / 0-)
of the civil war is pervasive in certain areas of the South! Never mind Fort Sumter. Never mind the "invasion" of the North when Lee had to march into Pennsylvania to prove his point and all. It's only the Yankees who were bad and vicious. Talk about the POWS at Andersonville in the South and see how quickly they scatter! Racists get TR'ed without apology from me and that "War of Northern Aggression" is classic code for it. Don't hurt their feelings with a TR though but buying and owning human beings- hey that's Ok! Just so long as we pay their owners for them and then free them. Oh, please ...It's disgusting. And it all comes from the warped mind of Ron Paul. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:37:48 PM PST [ Parent ] § I hadn't heard the term 'War of Northern (4+ / 0-)
Agression' in awhile. There was zero chance that Lincoln could have bought his way out of the Civil War without destroying the Union. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:28:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § Your 7th grade history text was not by (2+ / 0-)
Henry Timrod then. After all SC is described as being a difficult place to live "too small for a nation and too large for an asylum" by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:48:19 PM PST [ Parent ] · I've never been to SC - I try to stay away from (1+ / 0-)
the bright red states. Anyplace that gave us Stephen Colbert can't be all bad, right? I haven't the faintest clue who Henry Timrod is or who wrote my 7th grade history text. That was also awhile ago. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:25:41 PM PST [ Parent ] o Unfortunately I have (1+ / 0-)
And though many people were lovely there I had to hide my "Yankee" roots in order to practice law there. I was kindly advised to be very careful if I didn't want to injure my clent's case. As my client was elderly and being held against her will in a horrible nursing home; I was quite careful. The time I spent in Virginia had softened my accent. But there were several more than uncomfortable moments. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:11 PM PST [ Parent ] § You Keep Saying It's "FACT" (3+ / 0-)
but you haven't cited any sources. Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word for it. Back up your claim. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:46:25 PM PST [ Parent ] § If You Want Out Of Iraq So Damn Bad (3+ / 0-)
why don't you vote for Richardson or Kucinich? It's not as though there are no Democrats advocating immediate withdrawal. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:49:55 PM PST [ Parent ] § Kucinich isn't going to win. (0 / 0) I wish he could. His fundraising is flat, he doesn't appeal to those who like the slick type of democrat that all the rest are, and most think he's a crackpot after the ufo exchange. And Richardson is running for a cabinet position. He might as well not vote, as to vote for either... it will have the same effect on the Iraq folly. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:00:47 PM PST [ Parent ] · Neither is Ron Paul n/t (4+ / 0-)
by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:28:30 PM PST [ Parent ] § I abhor slavery, (0 / 0) and I abhor unnecessary wars. In a perfect world the slaveowners would have realized that slavery wasn't "nice," and set their slaves free. But that didn't happen. As a committed pacifist, I think paying slaveowners to stop a practice that was horrible for the country would have been a lot smarter than putting the whole country through a war. And I think there would have been a lot less racism without the war. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:22:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § "Compensated?" For The Sweat Of Their Brows (3+ / 0-)
when whipping the helpless slave? No, of course not! My bad! No...I've got it... They were ENTITLED TO compensation for the generations of free labor "engineered" by their ancestors' ingenuity...yeah! That's just about 'right!' I was totally gobsmacked when Timmeh let Paul get away with claiming that Lincoln should not have started the Civil War!?! Has Timmeh or Paul never heard of Fort Sumter? Our society is SO sick - and iy deeper than sex and porn. "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54 by majcmb1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:08:32 PM PST [ Parent ] § There definitely are ideas for which Ron Paul (0 / 0) can be criticized. Would abolishing the Federal Reserve work? Would the poor survive his libertarian dream? But I don't think it's fair to him, or accurate, to imply that he believes that slaveowners were "entitled" to a payoff. I believe his beliefs come out of his dislike of war. Better to give people money they don't deserve, than to force good people to fight an unavoidable war. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:32:17 AM PST [ Parent ] § Is he... (1+ / 0-)
Implicitly endorsing the notion that the system of slavery is not something the government should have a hand in regulating? That seems pretty... well... vile. I think "vile" is a good description, there. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:28:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § You want to know what's FUBAR? (17+ / 0-)
The only democratic challenger in FL-10 (as of right now) is planning to change her party affiliation to vote for this guy. She had published the news on her blog website. That, my friends, is the wingnuttery on the left side-- when anti-war means we foresake all of our other principles in blind support of peace. Boycotting CNN: biased news networks are bad for America, period. by jpfdeuce on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § you know what else is FUBAR (3+ / 0-)
Rs who favor compensating slaveholders for people they had no moral right to own in the first place, but who are rabidly opposed to compensating the slaves themselves or their descendants for the generations of free labor that built fortunes all over this country. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § Exactly -- (9+ / 0-)
Here in Washington State -- the same people who have Ron Paul signs -- also have had -- racist signs about Native Americans during the "fishing wars" when the tribes took their treaty rights to court and won. Same people have yard signs -- "Get US out of the UN" -- reasons = racism. I look at just who is supporting RP -- and I don't want to be in their company. That racist quote doesn't surprise me. Also -- the fact that he is a rabid "free market" advocate -- means that he is a member of a CULT -- and he is only interested in a very few getting very rich. by Carib and Ting on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § If he's a straight-up racist... (2+ / 0-)
How come I don't see it when I hear him talk? If you find some klan member or neo-nazi, it literally oozes out of them as they speak, even about things that you wouldn't guess that it'd be relevant (to them) to. If he is one, he seems to hide it well. And I have my doubts that anyone as goofy-and-naive-sounding is able to act so well. Supposing you're right, he's missed his calling, theater or Hollywood would have been a more natural fit. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM PST [ Parent ] § It's the ones who aren't obvious (6+ / 0-)
who are the most dangerous. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM PST [ Parent ] § Perhaps. (1+ / 0-)
But I'm not a 5 yr old either. There's "obvious to the media" and then there's "obvious to an individual", and that last one is always there. I suspect that Bush is a true racist. I wouldn't be shocked to discover Hillary was, but that when they're useful to her she's practical enough about it. But Ron Paul doesn't have that vibe. It all smells bad, and it's not Paul that stinks. If they really did support him, they'd be happy to hear him disavow and pull ahead for it. That they're making so much noise, I have to wonder if another campaign hasn't put them up to it in exchange for favors. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:59:16 AM PST [ Parent ] § A guy who says 95% of black men in DC (12+ / 0-)
are criminals. That doesn't give you the racist "vibe" about Paul? Wow. I think I've stepped into the Twilight Zone. "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:11:54 PM PST [ Parent ] § If you were actually trying to be reasonable... (1+ / 0-)
It'd be worth replying to. I'm supposing that he didn't write that. As claimed. If you have evidence to support that contention, present it... you'll be the talk of the media for the next week, and you can rest satisfied that you destroyed whatever hope he had of winning. I've listened to him, several hours in all, words that actually come out of his mouth. And no, I don't get a racist vibe from him at all. Please link to a video of him speaking, and give me some indication of where in it that I should pick up the racist vibe, or hear racist words. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:21:40 PM PST [ Parent ] § Where is the strident Paul effort (6+ / 0-)
to distance himself from those words if he didn't write them, and to expose the bastards who are besmirching his good name? He did get (and keep) a campaign contribution from an avowed white supremacist, so he has a few bucks to do so. "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:39 PM PST [ Parent ] § Heh. (2+ / 0-)
We see that from every alleged child molester, and we never believe it. Never. If I were wrongly accused of that, I believe I wouldn't bother to stridently proclaim my innocence. And people would be both glad and quick to condemn me for it. I don't see how this is any different. I do know that other politicians are always slick about it, and careful to distance themselves from such, and that rightly or wrongly, I fault them for being so slick about it. He did get (and keep) a campaign contribution from an avowed white supremacist, so he has a few bucks to do so. Um, I think you have that backwards. That makes whathisname a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul would be a racist supporter if he gave money to whathisname. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:32:32 PM PST [ Parent ] · You are too far gone (7+ / 0-)
Ron Paul would be a racist supporter if he gave money to whathisname. That is a textbook example of the typical BS semantics used by people to justify their support of racists. If anyone of the the other GOP candidates got a contribution from that guy, it would be returned before the ink dried on the check. Now that's saying something, because that entire GOP field--in the words of Howard Dean--looks like they're from the 1950s and talk like they're from the 1850s. "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM PST [ Parent ] o ? (0 / 0) If anyone of the the other GOP candidates got a contribution from that guy, it would be returned before the ink dried on the check. Yes. And whether or not this is the case (it is, I don't deny it), they're all unfit to be president, or for that matter to hold any public office. That he's not like them doesn't make him bad. That's the thing you don't seem to get... if he's not acting like they would, that all by itself makes him look a little better, even if you're not used to it. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. He voted against the impeachment thing awhile back, and it sort of pissed me off, but then all the other republicans voted for it, and it made me sit back and wonder what was up. If he's voting differently from them, maybe that's not all bad. Now that's saying something, because that entire GOP field--in the words of Howard Dean--looks like they're from the 1950s and talk like they're from the 1850s. In many ways the 1950s would be preferable to now, even if in other ways they wouldn't be. As for the 1850s, that'd not be my choice, but it's as good as any. Personally, I think Giuliani and Romney sound like they're from some barbarian age, and Huckabee as if he were straight out of the crusades. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:57 PM PST [ Parent ] · Just FYI: (5+ / 0-)
SOP is to donate vile contributions to a suitable charity. That way the contributor doesn't get the money back but it doesn't "taint" your campaign. Ron Paul could have easily done that. But he didn't. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:42:53 PM PST [ Parent ] § When OJ's done looking for the real killer... (4+ / 0-)
...perhaps he'll take some time to help us find the real racist in Ron Paul's office. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM PST [ Parent ] · I heard OJ found the real killer (0 / 0) in a mirror store of all places! "You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:24:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § "I'm supposing" -- that's what passes in your (0 / 0) world for "reasonable"? by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:18:24 PM PST [ Parent ] § help me i'm slipping into the Twilight Zone (0 / 0) Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:52:21 PM PST [ Parent ] § You've been hoodwinked (0 / 0) Come back from the Twilight Zone; he didn't say it. by Eustace Tilley on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:59:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § Hitler managed to hide a lot of his tendencies (1+ / 0-)
with his economic policies. Once the economy was up and running, then he started making his plans known to the world. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hitler managed to put a good face on it... (0 / 0) For the media. When was Mein Kampf published though? What was the military buildup for, if not for war? I mean, sure, there might be things like that with Paul. Something not quite hidden, but not quite obvious. But what is it, where is it? All we're geting here is a wankfest... by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM PST [ Parent ] § The military buildup didn't begin (1+ / 0-)
until after the economy was established again. I understand where you are going with when "Mein Kampf" was published, but at the time it was published, Hitler was just a two-bit player in an attempted coup. I doubt that a lot of Germans were focused on reading it at the time. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:07:06 PM PST [ Parent ] § Mein Kampf (1+ / 0-)
Hitler wrote MK in the early '20s, during his stint in jail. The first part was published in 1925, well before he came into official power. I've got a copy of the first complete American edition, from 1939. It became a bestseller in Germany, with 10 million copies printed, although -- like people voting for Nixon -- few admit to having actually read it. There's a little saga about the various struggles over ownership to the intellectual rights of the book at Copyreich. I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965 by darrelplant on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:40:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § As you point out, it was ancient history... (1+ / 0-)
...by the time he was running for office. If you have to look that far into someone's past to smear them, they must be a good person. It was probably just written by a staffer, anyways.... (snark) by zeytoun on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Amen, phil (3+ / 0-)
"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08 by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:08:19 PM PST [ Parent ] § ? (0 / 0) So his alleged racism isn't obvious, its covert? Then you disagree with Kos? The point of this diary is to describe Pauls OVERT racism. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:41 PM PST [ Parent ] § You mean he's (15+ / 0-)
not ending every speech with, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!"? How surprising. He isn't a moron. Saying that racists can't hide it is naive. That article he wrote...look at the history of it. Originally, he claimed it was his. Then someone else wrote it, but the sentiment was his. Then it became "Ghost written." It was his newsletter. He had to approve everything in it before it could be published. His. He doesn't have that support from white supremacists for nothing. You don't see it because you don't want to. Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:05 PM PST [ Parent ] § Heh. (1+ / 0-)
I see things for what they are, and withhold judgement until I have enough facts to do so reasonably. If the best you can manage, is to tell me what I see and what I want, why should I bother to listen to you? And it's so stupid. I am a supporter, I will vote for him, but he is truly flawed. If you wanted to scare me, you'd not be making shit like this up, you'd be talking about the real flaws. But to do that, you lose all the bogeyman appeal, and he merely becomes a flawed human being whose reason doesn't extend to every subject. It's a somewhat humanizing process, and that's the last thing you want to happen, because even a flawed candidate is better than the dishonest sacks of shit that are the only other viable options. not ending every speech with, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!"? How surprising. He isn't a moron. Saying that racists can't hide it is naive. You've obviously not listened to very many. Perhaps you've heard a few David Duke soundbites when it makes it to the 6'o'clock news, but that's it. If you had listened to any, you'd know how absurd it is what you've just said. It is palpable, it oozes from their pores and sloshes out from their lipless little reptillian mouths with every single word, if not in choice then in intonation. The fuckers can't talk about anything, even the weather is some evil jew plot. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:39:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § I'm not making anything up (6+ / 0-)
I see this as a real flaw. Your last paragraph is discussing the extremes. People that make a living being racists do have a tendency to be more upfront about it. That is why they end up on the news. It is also why they are always a fringe group not taken very seriously by most. In all things human, there is a spectrum. Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:01:18 PM PST [ Parent ] § I don't see it as a flaw. (0 / 0) And I have to seriously wonder. We probably both agree on who the extremists are, and that they exist. But you're positing a whole coven of secret racists, that don't give off any signs of their racism except those that you magically see. They're probably just your version of McCarthy's communists. Until I see something more concrete than a newsletter from 20 years ago that is acknowledged as having been written by someone else, I don't know that I can believe in your kind of racist. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:16:08 PM PST [ Parent ] § Can you tell a racist (1+ / 0-)
by just observing them once or twice? If they are not spouting racist bile, would you know one right away? Probably not. I've known many who you would not suspect are, and you only find out by knowing them for a period of time. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:10:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § Once or twice? (1+ / 0-)
No. I'm not as bad as some, but I've heard the words spoken from his mouth on video on dozens of occassions that must total many hours of video footage. If they are not spouting racist bile, would you know one right away? Probably not. Perhaps not. It's not as probable though, in my opinion, as you make it out to be. But no, the gentle and friendly demeanor, the lack of sarcasm or cynicism. The inflection of his voice. Hell, he's disinterested in nearly every tangetial issue to racism that there is, with the exception of banking/monetary stuff (and the worldwide jewish conspiracy bullshit that the subject conjures for some). I listen to him, and I get the impression that here's a man that's never so much as told a polock joke in his life. But perhaps I'm wrong. It's just shameful how many here are so perfectly certain that they're right. In so many ways. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:37:15 PM PST [ Parent ] · Well, (4+ / 0-)
his own words are what influenced me. His voting record and statements of which social programs he would end and why also make me suspicious. Pointing out past statements that were racist and then not finding a rejection of those statements, to you, is shameful? Not ignoring his record is a bad thing? Excusing your past by making claims of "Ghost writers" doesn't really say you don't believe them. If you support someone, you should be aware of what they said. If you want to justify those words, or ignore them, then that is not honesty either. I won't do it. Show me with a link where he has outright rejected those past words--and maybe I'll buy what you are saying. Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:47:02 PM PST [ Parent ] o His voting record's fair game... (0 / 0) As long as you do a fair job of interpreting. Just a for instance, but you'd think that all the republicans were for impeachment save him, to look at the voting records. That interpretation just doesn't make any sense. And I can see how you'd be suspicious of him, considering what he says of social programs. I can find no fault there. Hell, people should be naturally suspicious of what all politicians say, until they've long since proven things otherwise. I can't show you a link, I have none. I'd not be shocked to learn that no rejection exists, of the kind you'd accept. I also have my doubts it would do much good, you don't like him even if he's not a racist. That's the part I don't understand... why repeat all this bullshit, when it's enough to say you don't like him? There are things that scare me about him too. His ideas about religion are dangerous. And it amazes me sometimes, that a man who says we need to end the drug war because criminalization just breeds a black market doesn't realize that the same rule applies to immigration... as long as we continue to make legal immigration impossible, only the illegal variety will exist. And these are just legitimate criticisms that occur to me, I'm that the more liberal crowd here on DK could come up with many more. But it's more fun to repeat this crap. When the perfect democrat candidate comes along, the same type of smears will happen to them, and you'll all howl. You'll all still deserve it though. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:17:13 PM PST [ Parent ] § You have no link-- (4+ / 0-)
so no rejection you know of. Then you tell me what I'll accept and dismiss me with, "there's nothing you would believe anyway." That's a cop out. See, the thing is, I really do change my mind when new evidence is presented, but usually not until. So sue me. I don't like him as a candidate. I don't have personal hatred for him. Those things that you see as "dangerous" are what I see as enough to not support him at all. I can agree with him on the war but if he ends it soon after being elected--we are then stuck with "President" Ron Paul. All of those other factors then very much come into play. Actually, I do see the faults of our candidates as well, which is why I am still undecided. The system is as close to broken as you can get but it is the one we're stuck with for now. I still have to pick the one that seems to represent the largest percentage of what I believe and the rest is compromise. There are things I am not willing to compromise on--and Paul embodies too many of those. Why are you here? You claim you never voted before, you don't like Democrats, you will go back to not voting if Paul is not the nominee and you are supporting a Republican on a site that says right in the mission statement that this site is not here to support Republicans. Do you agree with Paul on property rights? Do you believe that property owners should be able to control their property? If so, then I really must ask you--why are you here? Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:12:44 PM PST [ Parent ] § All I meant was this. (0 / 0) Even if I somehow prove he's not a racist, it doesn't change anything. You still don't like him, for reasons that are much more understandable. I know I'm making an assumption here, but you differ with him greatly on policy. Fine. No point in arguing that. It's fair. You might even be right, though I don't have any idea how to go about proving or disproving that your policy ideas are better. And, as I said, there is no link. If he's rejected it, I have not heard of it. I don't think he's a racist, I could be wrong. If you're suspicious that he is, well, you have a right to be, and it's even smart to be. Be suspicious of it, there's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant that. But don't embrace the accussations as gospel, as the ones here who call me a racist and keep telling me I'd be more comfortable at davidduke.com and are being recommended out the wazzoo for it. Why are you here? You claim you never voted before, you don't like Democrats, you will go back to not voting if Paul is not the nominee and you are supporting a Republican on a site that says right in the mission statement that this site is not here to support Republicans. I am here, because about 3 months ago, another site linked to here with yet another diary accusing Paul of defecating on women while eating human babies and strangling puppies. I'm supporting someone who is running for the republican nomination, but if Free Republic and Redstate and Little Green Footballs are to be believed, is in no way a republican. I trust them to know their own. I honestly think I won't bother voting if he loses, but nothing anyone here has said has dissuaded me of it. I don't like democrats, but only because they're politicians... not because they're democrats. Democrats, after all, have enabled Bush how many times? But I don't hold it against the party label necessarily, just the occupation. This site can claim what it likes in the mission statement, but if it wants to pretend to be a place of discourse, it should expect the likes of me from time to time. It could just as easily shut down the forums, and just issue edicts of who to vote for. I mean really, if I'm not welcome here, say so. Is that what you want, what others here want? You can just all have fun in your little wankfest smearing Paul, and no one will say anything contrary. I'm sure that's not an environment ripe for abuse. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:31:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § This place never pretended to be (2+ / 0-)
a place of discourse about all candidates. Ever. There are places on the web for that if that is your interest. Even among Democratic candidates there is room for "discussion" in an environment set up to elect Democrats. That is what this place is. It is in the FAQ. If you are here to support Paul, you actually are going against what the owner of the site and admins have stated Dkos is for. So, this place is not for your attempt to cheer lead for Paul. That would be that whole "property rights" thing again. It must be difficult when an important issue to your candidate actually makes your posting here hypocritical. No one ever accused Paul of "eating puppies," and the person you say told you to go the the David Duke site did so to let you see the unabashed support your candidate is getting from Duke. Hyperbole is unbecoming. There is a difference between "bringing up valid concerns" and "wankfest smearing." Until Paul no longer has an (R) after his name, he is a Republican candidate. Lyndon LaRouche claims to be a Democrat and I think he is a complete whack job. The Republican sites have an opinion about your candidate. They have a right to do that. I disagree with them on many issues but don't go there because they have a right to control the content of their site. Same thing here. If Paul could, he would run as a Libertarian, but they have the same chance as the Greens of winning the Presidency--so he is "pretending" he is a Republican. Sounds kind of like a "politician", doesn't it? Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:08:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § Heh. (0 / 0) the person you say told you to go the the David Duke site did so to let you see the unabashed support your candidate is getting from Duke. Hyperbole is unbecoming. David Duke also breathes. Please stop being such a racist, SeattleLiberal, stop breathing. That's what I hear, when I hear asinine arguments like that. I've probably been democrat-sympathetic for years, and since Bush it's only grown stronger. But of late, I've seen why democrats aren't fit to lead either. It's because of things like this. When the young guy at my other job was ranting against unions, I'd want to slap him. When hardcore libertarians go on about the market solving all things, I want to strangle them... and many other examples besides. But people here tell lies to win. They tell them to themselves so they can feel good, and to others to get their way. Sorry, can't go for that. Property rights? Funny that you'd only invoke them when they're convenient for you. No one's asked me to leave or stop posting. When they do, I'll probably stop reading here also... because there's nothing here worth reading. If Paul could, he would run as a Libertarian, but they have the same chance as the Greens of winning the Presidency--so he is "pretending" he is a Republican I know, great isn't it? Ballot access laws and the party duopoly have subverted our democracy for a century now. And rather than just give up and go home, he's found a really clever way to beat them at their own game. Even the timing is great, any other election year, and he'd be a nobody. Sounds kind of like a "politician", doesn't it? Not at all. A politician would be cutting deals and brokering favors to be one of the blesed candidates. Many here go on about how it's only labels that matter, and that Hillary and Lieberman are democrats, so apparently all it takes to acquire that label is to jump through some hoops. He's done that, so there is no dishonesty or deception inherent in his bid that way. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:43:25 PM PST [ Parent ] · I have a question (0 / 0) are you from his District? You talk as if you have watched him personally over the years. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are teh sux by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:53:49 PM PST [ Parent ] o No, not from his district. (0 / 0) I've never seen him in person. Just catching up on alot of video footage. You'd think he was polling at 75%, the way the kossers here rant against him, or that any of the other republicans are more worthy nominees. Everyone says he can't win, but if vitriol is any indication, he's going to kick ass in Iowa and not stop. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:10:36 PM PST [ Parent ] § The reason we react more (4+ / 0-)
to him is that many people that claim to be progressives are inexplicably buying what he is selling and overlooking, like you, many things most of us are unwilling to compromise on. We aren't loosing votes to the others. I have a lot of vitriol towards David Duke and Fred Phelps. Does that mean they might win the nomination as well? Do I have to spell out which logical fallacy you just used? Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:17:08 PM PST [ Parent ] § How many David Duke soundbites is too many? (2+ / 0-)
Forget racism, moron, Ron Paul is the most dishonest person running for president today. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM PST [ Parent ] § I've been trollrated for namecalling. (3+ / 0-)
Wonder if it'll happen to you. I'd bet $20 it doesn't. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:12:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § You've been trollrated (5+ / 0-)
for lying on behalf of a racist piece of crap. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § I don't lie. (1+ / 0-)
I'm not racist. But keep repeating it. The two minute hate is about to start. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:33:08 PM PST [ Parent ] · Try DavidDuke.com (1+ / 0-)
No hate for people like you there. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:37:22 PM PST [ Parent ] o You have no idea what kind of person I am. (0 / 0) But you've shown me what kind of person you are. This is Redstate, but for a few keyword substitutions. The anti-Ron Paul diaries are practically the same though. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:41:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Try again (3+ / 0-)
I didn't say go to Redstate. Even those people know better than to support a scumbag like Ron Paul. My suggestion to you was DavidDuke.com. Here is the link, and if you scroll down you can read something written by your hero: John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:45:20 PM PST [ Parent ] § Good Grief, You're Right! (5+ / 0-)
David Duke is promoting Ron Paul's candidacy. Case closed for me. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:59:07 PM PST [ Parent ] § Just because there are scum here like (0+ / 0-)
Mia Dolan (quite possibly an agent provocateur) doesn't mean this is like RedState. It's amusing, in the sick sort of way that people like Mia amuse, that she links to "something written by your hero" which is Ron Paul commenting on the NIE on Iran and how it confirms what he has said in the past about the bluster of Bush administration -- something that even those of use who disagree with Paul on many other things would agree with in this instance. Of course, we are supposed to damn Paul merely because his piece was posted at davidduke.com -- a bit of irrational reasoning if ever there was one. Ron Paul is a very poor choice for President, but not for that reason. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:41:55 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hey asshole (1+ / 0-)
Its not like Duke just linked to Ron Paul's article - the article is there with Ron Paul's express permission and consent. Paul should be damned for having anything whatsoever to do with David Duke. And Duke's website isn't the only far right racist nutbag group Paul is linked to. There's a picture on this thread with Paul and the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Stromfront. Paul is right about the Iraq war, but his affiliation with racists and neo-Nazis is one of the many reasons Ron Paul is a poor choice for president. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:48 PM PST [ Parent ] § WTF? (0 / 0) You aren't a Paulbot - why are you defending Paul's association with David Duke? Again, its not a link - its a whole article, printed with the express permission of Ron Paul. I think that any decent candidate (or decent human being) would try to disassociate themselves from Duke or from the Stormfront leader and former Klan grand Wizard who donated to Paul and was photographed with him. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § I defended nothing other than reason. n/t (0 / 0) by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:28:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Troll? You think? (0 / 0) I believe strongly, from reading most of this thread, that NoMoreNicksLeft is not only a troll, but a troll-smelling, troll-shaped troll-y troll Troll. I am surprised at the amount of time they're willing to devote to their cause without compensation. I almost want to believe they're getting paid -- at least then they'd have one coherent motivation for their nonsense. This is just a feeling I have based on reading the poster's comments and diaries. The tactics used -- the "argue then retreat" -- it all stinks to high heaven. I hate to see people using real mental effort trying to have a discussion with a person like this. Ron Paul is against abortion, regulation of business, and would like to drown our government in Norquist's bathtub. He's also a proud bigot. It makes my brain want to explode when I see people willing to condone all of that, just because he says he'll end the war. Believe it or not, there was plenty of evil and stupidity in America before the war, and there will be plenty after the war. A lot of it looks just like Ron Paul. I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter in real life. I'm starting to think that a lot of his "rabid online support" is actually a handful of people like our trolly little friend here. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin by Valentine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:44:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § If he's so proud, why is he denying it? (1+ / 0-)
Or were you just on a roll, and couldn't think of another adjective? Maybe we should all take up a collection and buy you a thesaurus. just because he says he'll end the war. Believe it or not, there was plenty of evil and stupidity in America before the war, and there will be plenty after the war. A lot of it looks just like Ron Paul. This is why the democrats haven't ended it. You wonder why Pelosi is so naive, or why they won't go to bat to end the atrocity. It's not because they don't have a big enough majority. Or because Cheney is extorting them somehow. It's complete indifference. It does not matter in the scheme of things. "There's always plenty of evil, the important thing is that democrat programs get put into law, and how can ending the war help that?!". I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter in real life. The black guy at work is lukewarm about voting for Paul, because he thinks that he can't win. Other than that, he says he wants to vote for him. My boss wants to, his wife. Two of my former coworkers will. One of their wives, I happen to know will. The one coworker's 18 yr old son that was an intern this summer. Me. My fiance will, I think. One of my friends. My grandfather said on the phone that he likes him, but doesn't think that he can win. And I've half-talked one of my friends into voting for him "just to fuck with the republicans". My boss's boss might even be talked into it yet, he used to be a Thompson supporter, but was laughing at him last time it came up, over how badly that campaign has went. Personally, I count over 11 votes of those people that I know. And I don't go to any of the meetup crap, I've declined every time my boss has tried to cajole me into doing it. I don't think I'm part of some clique that thinks no one else can win. But you definitely are part of such. In less than two months, we'll know just what the score is. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:27:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § Romney is more dishonest (0 / 0) but fewer people are buying into Romney's crap these days. for some reason otherwise reasonable people can't see through Ron Paul... Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:02:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § real flaws, aside from being racist (1+ / 0-)
pro-life, anti-evolution, denies global warming, opposes separation of church and state, opposes federally funded public education, opposes federally funded health care, opposes federal consumer protection -- those are just a few things I got off a pro- Ron Paul blog. Any Democrat or liberal for Ron Paul is an ignoramus or a moron. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:27:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § Calling the Civil Rights Act a mistake (6+ / 0-)
is pretty clear cut to me. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:35:36 PM PST [ Parent ] § Yes. (1+ / 0-)
Let's all boil it down to the most simplistic interpretation possible. That makes alot of sense. Ever bother to listen to the reasons behind that, or are there sacred laws that can never be questioned, not even in some of the minor details? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:40:27 PM PST [ Parent ] § Minor details? (4+ / 0-)
His reason was a high-falutin' version of "my restaurant, my rules. N*****s out." To answer your question, yes. Anyone who questions the Civil Rights Act is not someone anyone around here should be supporting. It's unAmerican. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:13:04 PM PST [ Parent ] § Not Just a Racist But a Sexist, Too. n/t (1+ / 0-)
by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:38:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § Thank you, Kos. My point exactly (0 / 0) I've been trying to get the point across that this guy is neo-nazi, sheet-wearing KKK-type racist. His other ideas don't matter (however nutty they might be). This is too big of a boulder to get over. Forget boulder. This is like trying to get over Mt. Everest. And why didn't Timmy boy bring up this quote on MTP? Could Timmy be a racist too? People who support Ron Paul are out-and-out racists as well - no two ways about it. And if they don't know about his policies or stances on these subjects, they should do their due dilligence and get informed - rather than opening their mouths and their wallets. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze and dumbfound me. by ccr4nine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:13 PM PST [ Parent ] § Re: NO THANK YOU KOS!!!!!! (1+ / 0-)
"I make no distinction between him and those who support him." journalschism "We will make no
distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who
harbor them." ~ Bush Kind of a sweeping generalization of the very archetype you loathe, i.e. Bush? Who knew the partisan balloons would have so much in common with the likes of Bush, Lie-berman, et.al? Just because a lie is repeated many times (Paul is a racist, Paul is a nutjob racist, Paul is a straight up racist) doesn't make it so! Ex.1: Saddam has WMDs,
Saddam is a threat to us, Saddam is getting yellow cakes from Niger, SADDAM... by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:12:34 PM PST [ Parent ] o He didn't write it ... (9+ / 0-)
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them. by mildewmaximilian on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:48 AM PST [ Parent ] § And again I say (21+ / 0-)
It took him 10 YEARS to disavow the newsletter. If the newsletter really managed to get written, published, and mailed without Paul's awareness of the content (seriously??), at some point after its publication he surely must have become aware of it. But he took no action (like, say, sending out a letter at the time to all subscribers apologizing for the content of that particular newsletter). It's only a decade later, when questioned by a reporter, that suddenly it's a ghostwriter and he knew nothing. Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:35:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § Another appeal to implausible deniability. (7+ / 0-)
Another paragon of virtue preserving his virginity by an appeal to original ignorance. "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:42:43 AM PST [ Parent ] § Paul Refuses to Release His Newsletters (14+ / 0-)
And we can see why. There is, no doubt, much else to disavow. So before progressives wet their pants with joy that a Republican actually opposes the war in Iraq -- let's see all that he had to say when no one was looking. FrederickClarkson.com and TalktoAction.org by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:46:24 AM PST [ Parent ] § This newsletter was from 1992, right? (5+ / 0-)
My question would be: what is the most recent racist writing or comment from Ron Paul? I do believe it is possible that people change over time. You might say he is being careful about what he says now, since he has become an internet phenomenon and is in the spotlight. But no one was looking just a year ago. Is there anything from this century that reflects racist opinions and positions? I'm certainly not a Ron Paul supporter (I'm a Democrat, for Pete sake) but I do think it's a shame to tar people for life with old beliefs they may have moved away from. With Ron Paul, I don't know if he has or hasn't moved away from those beliefs. Does anyone else? So far, he has been a breath of fresh air in the republican debates--the sole voice of sanity amidst their chest-beating tough talk re. Iraq and "terrorists." "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water." by Happy Days on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:00:48 AM PST [ Parent ] § He's isolationist, not a "peace" lover (6+ / 0-)
The core of his support comes from people who don't want to fight brown people over there so they can fight them over here. He is intentionally courting the Stormfronters in code. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:18:23 AM PST [ Parent ] § If he's courting stormfronters... (4+ / 0-)
Why do I like what he has to say? I'm not one of them. He talks about trading with all nations, allowing people from the rest of the world to come here, people from here to travel anywhere else in the world, lifting sanctions with Cuba and Iran, sending diplomats and ambassadors to them... Near as I can tell, the only things he wants to isolate, are our bombs from other countries' collateral damage aka civillians. "Isolationist" is meaningless in the way you use it, other than as a smear. Feudal Japan was isolationist. Paul is just not a bloodthirsty warmonger. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:50:12 AM PST [ Parent ] § They probably (2+ / 0-)
wonder what in the hell you see in him. It is the oddest mixture of supporters I can recall seeing. Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § See? (0 / 0) That's something that can be said about Paul that can't be denied. It really is the oddest mix ever. And even as one myself, I haave no idea what to make of it. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:08 PM PST [ Parent ] § Waiter, this is not spring chicken (3+ / 0-)
He was 57 when that newsletter was published; he was 67 when he disavowed it. Kinda like finding religion on one's deathbed. by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:33:53 AM PST [ Parent ] § But there are (4+ / 0-)
more parts to the Ron Paul phenomenon than meet the eye. This "racist part" of him hasn't been out there very much. He is hitting a chord with many people because there is so much anger about the outsourcing of the computer industry, anger about the war and anger about the religious right. He's got a ferocious following simply because being outraged over racism seems to have a lot of competing outrages, lately. "I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94) by suswa on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:35:39 AM PST [ Parent ] § Moved away from? (12+ / 0-)
but I do think it's a shame to tar people for life with old beliefs they may have moved away from. With Ron Paul, I don't know if he has or hasn't moved away from those beliefs. Does anyone else?
Left: Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Center: Don Black, the owner/founder of neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Right: Don Balck's son, Derek Black, founder, Stormfront Kids. Can you name one other natioanal candidate who would even associate with this type. ...and if it were "just a coincidence" and neo-nazis "just happened" to show up at one of their events for a photo-op....would not release a disclaimer immediately? Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform by Duke1676 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:04:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § Three days ago (7+ / 0-)
When he said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong because it interferes with private property rights. Next question? The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:42:57 PM PST [ Parent ] § So? (1+ / 0-)
Suppose that me, a nobody, told a racist joke when I was 19. 40 years later, I run for president, and that comes out. Is it problematic that I didn't call a press conference back when I was 19 yrs old, and apologize for it? I'd never even heard of him 15 years ago. Most hadn't. Hell, if the polls are to be believed, many still haven't. You're gauging how long he waited to disavow, and trying to use this to show him to be a closet racist, without telling us where the cutoff is after which it would no longer be genuine. If he waited 6 months and a day, he's a racist, but at the 180 day mark still good? Is it 2 weeks and no more? 15 minutes? One wonders just what would be acceptable, and if that were somehow the case, you'd not move the deadline forward a few days or hours. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:20:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § Also... (0 / 0) This was his newsletter. He had editorial control. He put his name on it. If he didn't write it and didn't believe in what was written then how did it end up in his publication? This whole "did he write it or not" thing is a bit of a red herring. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:53:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § He authorized it, even if he didn't author it (6+ / 0-)
Let's be real here. No politician writes his or her own speeches or newsletters these days. So what? This was a Ron Paul document, and he let it sit out there for years before disclaiming it. Even now, he's continuing the dog whistle to hard core racists with the MTP slavery crap and the line in his stump speech about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional (which is a head scratcher for most people, but red meat for his underground militia base). The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:43 AM PST [ Parent ] § This is what I (7+ / 0-)
laugh about. I used to publish newsletters. The content of that letter needed to be approved by the person who's name was on it. So, to deny he had an idea of what was in there, he has 2 optoins. 1- He's lying and knew
about it. I guess they need to decide which option they prefer. I'm going with number 1. Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you. by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:21:51 PM PST [ Parent ] § The kindest interpretation is (0 / 0) that he wasn't too professional. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:10:35 PM PST [ Parent ] § which raises the question (0 / 0) if he is up to being president. by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:14:03 PM PST [ Parent ] § Stylistic differences (2+ / 0-)
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. OK, I guess that's right. These passages were typewritten, and Ron Paul only writes in crayon. In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson by ivorybill on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:22:39 AM PST [ Parent ] o REF to Bartlett diary rescue yesterday (6+ / 0-)
All of them are racists. What is amazing is to watch the wingers try to rewrite history and claim that they are the party of the minorities. I think his solution to the Civil War to buy out the slaveowners shows a psychological attachment to the Dred Scott Decision and its premise that African slaves are chattel. This seems to be an undercurrent to his discussions even as recent as this weekend. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM PST [ Parent ] § Strict Constructionist (4+ / 0-)
The current crop of rabid right wingnut judges the republicans have foisted off on us certainly hasn't disavowed Dred Scott. The would like to review Griswold though, as that is the beginning of reproductive freedom for the women of this country. by Wordsinthewind on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:59 AM PST [ Parent ] § I expect Griswold to end up in front of SCOTUS (1+ / 0-)
and be nibbled away at. Scalia's rant that there is no constitutional guarantee of privacy is the viewpoint of at least 4 justices now, if not more. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM PST [ Parent ] § Four? (1+ / 0-)
Which? I thought it was 3. Besides, if privacy isn't in the constitution, maybe it ought to be. We can ammend the thing, after all. Even supposing that there was no right to privacy, abortion seems seperate enough to me that it really shouldn't rest on a foundation of privacy. That logic was always pretty twisted anyway. Why do we expect such important things to be decided as whims by courts and legislatures? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:55:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § I believe we can safely count (3+ / 0-)
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are pretty good bets for buying the no constitutional guarantee of personal privacy. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:11:44 PM PST [ Parent ] § Ah. (0 / 0) You may be right. Keep forgetting Thomas, despite the fact that it's been what, going on two decades now? Blah. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:23:41 PM PST [ Parent ] § I remember Strom escorting him (1+ / 0-)
down the aisle; nothing like Senator for Eternity to sear things into your memory. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:30:13 PM PST [ Parent ] § So You Think Abortion Rights Are Important? (0 / 0) Have you checked out your candidate's position on reproductive freedom lately? by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:09:31 PM PST [ Parent ] § My position on abortion... (0 / 0) Is likely incomprehensible to you. Just from the fact that you used the term "abortion rights", I can tell this. No point in discussing it here. Know that since all candidates are wrong on the issue, and that most are dishonest to the point of being creepy, makes Paul and his honest but incorrect stance an improvement. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:39:27 PM PST [ Parent ] § Substantive due process (1+ / 0-)
Read the dissent of
Hugo Black, a liberal New Dealer and Roosevelt appointee, in dissenting on
Griswold. He said that the penumbra argument for a right to privacy that
William O.Douglas and Earl Warren followed was a bad way of making a decision,
because it kept in line with the conservative activist judges of the early 20th
century, who used the substantive due process doctrine in decisions like
Lochner. by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:51:39 PM PST [ Parent ] § Judicial question: (0 / 0) Why is it that conservatives want to overturn Roe and Griswold (ie. the "right to privacy" based on the idea of "substantive due process" within the 5th and 14th Amendment) but want to return to the Lochner era, where conservative SCOTUS justices used the same substantive due process doctrine to strike down state economic regulations? It doesn't make sense in terms of judicial consistency. by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:48:22 PM PST [ Parent ] o oh NOES!!!!1 (2+ / 0-)
It was teh GHOSTwriters!! Not the sainted Dr. Paul, M.D.! Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are teh sux by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:48:14 PM PST [ Parent ] o and send this link too (0 / 0) thanks phenry! Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:22:27 PM PST [ Parent ] · Well (16+ / 0-)
that was a firmly disgusting piece. The guy is racist to the bone. Common Sense is not Common by RustyBrown on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:41:56 AM PST o Which is worse? (1+ / 0-)
Being a racist or capitalizing on it? by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:47:36 AM PST [ Parent ] § Racist is (2+ / 0-)
as racist does. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:16 AM PST [ Parent ] · I have a big problem with Hillary's racist (7+ / 0-)
campaign tactics as well. Ron Paul is right 50% of the time and horrably worng the other half of the time. Obama: what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:42:38 AM PST o evidence, please? (15+ / 0-)
I'm not aware of any racist campaign tactics used by the Clinton campaign. Can you provide a link explaining what is she's done? (This is a genuine request; I don't mean to sound snarky). As for Paul, the only issue that I think he's right on is Iraq. Everything else the man says is batshit crazy. by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:45:52 AM PST [ Parent ] § how about these? (0 / 0) So that makes her both a foul mouthed racist and anti-Semite. by nakedcomputerguy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:51 AM PST [ Parent ] § NewsMax? (19+ / 0-)
You're citing NewsMax as a reliable source? (That's where almost all of the particularly offensive quotes in that link are sourced to.) You've got to be fucking kidding me. by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:39 AM PST [ Parent ] § Just because you say something... (7+ / 0-)
...doesn't make it so. FACT: Hillary has a greater percentage of paid campaign African-American staffers (nearly 20%) than Obama does. FACT: Hillary has far more minorities and women working for her than any other campaign. FACT: Obama isn't for Universal Health Care and UHC would benefit minorities far more than the "average" white middle-class American. by kipzoo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:42:01 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yeah (3+ / 0-)
....and George Bush had more Black staff than Bill Clinton. What are you saying? Only Republicans have Black tokens ? "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:18:17 AM PST [ Parent ] § FACT: (2+ / 0-)
people who use 'FACT:' to preface their claims sound desperate to establish them as truth. scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92 by el zilcho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:30:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § Do you have any reason to think they aren't true (0 / 0) or are you just desperate to blow hot air? by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:53:02 PM PST [ Parent ] § I'm not desperate. (0 / 0) What is YOUR point? What would you like me to do? Do you believe that these facts aren't true? What are you trying to say? Do you think I'm blowing hot air? I'm not. I'm just trying to share information. Are Obama supporters scared of facts? By cutting me down and dismissing me entirely, does that make these facts any less true? What are you trying to say el zilcho? Oh wait, I guess el zilcho means nothing and so you don't need to say anything. I forget, Obama supporters don't need facts, are perfectly fine when their candidate goes negative, can't handle the scrutiny their candidate takes from the media or people who don't support them. Saying nothing is appropriate for you Mr. Zero. For there is nothing to say when you are wrong. by kipzoo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:53:16 AM PST [ Parent ] § i'm not an obama supporter (0 / 0) but i dont have to be to notice that hillary as a candidate is the gravest threat to a democratic presidential victory in '08; that much is certain to anyone who has ever talked to a republican about her. she will turn their discontentment and complacence to bile and a motivation to 'stop her'. on top of that, she's an insipid and craven figure to most of the progressive movement. she kowtows and compromises, makes poor decisions calculated to make her look 'tough'. she's a menace, and, as i said, our biggest liability this election season. that said, my comment was about none of this. the 'FACT:' device is annoying and counterproductive. by so clumsily framing your assertions, you only detract from them. if you feel like you need to dress up your claims, try citing some sources next time. scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92 by el zilcho on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:18:05 PM PST [ Parent ] § This guy is interesting (1+ / 0-)
as the author of the article: While he claims to be nonpartisan, it appears he has some sort of Hilary fixation. I assume the Wiki bio is his own contribution or sourced to him at least in part. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yup (0 / 0) I assume the Wiki bio is his own contribution or sourced to him at least in part. Confirmed on the article's discussion page. by Goobergunch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:43:12 PM PST [ Parent ] § How about "you're a fucking troll"? n/t (0 / 0) by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:51:11 PM PST [ Parent ] § PATRIOT Act, DrugWar, REAL-ID (5+ / 0-)
Okay, I'm done. Democratic Candidate
for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012) by ben masel on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:09:13 AM PST [ Parent ] § It's all spin and lies (0 / 0) In the long run, this kind of negative low life tactic, especially since it is getting support from the Hillary hating sexist Chris Matthews, will hurt the Obama campaign. by Jjc2006 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:08 AM PST [ Parent ] § Seems like a Rove thing to me. (1+ / 0-)
Doing all the race-baiting on Obama and making it look like Clinton did it, thereby hurting two top Democrats at the same time. Bet on it, the Republicans are behind it. It smells of Republican all the way through. "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:43 AM PST [ Parent ] § Only that issue? (1+ / 0-)
War on drugs? Our economy is seriously screwed? Repeal the patriot act? Lift sanctions to Cuba and Iran, and send diplomats there? The state's attempts to enact meaningful legislation shouldn't be thwarted by the federal government, as in the EPA thing here just recently? He's right on more than one issue. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:02:17 PM PST [ Parent ] § Great campaign slogan (2+ / 0-)
"Vote for Ron Paul! He's right on more than one issue!" by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:14:31 PM PST [ Parent ] o Not *even* the same thing. (18+ / 0-)
Her campaign hasn't said anything even remotely close to what Paul has said. She hasn't attracted a loud, solid neo-Nazi fanbase. VNN, Stormfront et al. aren't encouraging their freaks to donate to her.
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:46:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § Of course not, (0 / 0) she's much too good of a politician for that . . . by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:47 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yeh... (0 / 0) And the places that are supposedly exposing this rabid stormfront fanbase, are the same places Daily Kos rants against at all other times. Is it not possible that Giuliani or Romney isn't promising a favor or two, to torpedo Paul? Seriously, if you're a neonazi with an ounce of sense, and you'd like Ron Paul to be in office, would you annouce it, or keep quiet so as to not embarrass him? They're evil little subhumans, not stupid little subhumans. They seem to be doing the exact opposite of what is in their best interest, and not one of their own is complaining at them to shut up. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:06:32 PM PST [ Parent ] o Except... (20+ / 0-)
...Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, did not say that 95% of black people were criminals. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18) by DH from MD on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § no but she infered Obama (4+ / 0-)
can not be president because he is a "drug dealer". the morning after Shaheens comments she refused to say Obama's teen years shouldn't be held against him and said her strong points were that she was vetted and no surprises. In the context of Shaheen's remarks it's playing the race card. Do i think Hillary is a racist? no but she's willing to play to percieved racism to win. Paul is simply a nutcase who like a broken clock is right about some things. Obama: what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:53:55 AM PST [ Parent ] § It's a shitty campaign tactic, sure (5+ / 0-)
That's not in dispute. But it's not even close to Ron Paul's explicit endorsement of the StormFront position on minority Americans. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18) by DH from MD on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:57:51 AM PST [ Parent ] § Who are you to wage (11+ / 0-)
what is and is not offensive and racist to Blacks? I will have you know I see it all the same. 1 Romney's Racist Book of Mormon and the lie about marching with Dr. King in an effort to cover it up. 2 Ron Paul's Racist Ideas and his distorted and ignorant attitude towards Blacks and Jews 3 The Clinton Campaigns Racist Tactics using Black stereotypes about cocaine , sending e-mails suggesting he's a radical Manchurian Muslim , ect. ect.a I and many other African Americans see it ll the same. Who are you guys to dictate to us what is and is not to be taken as racist? "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:07:08 AM PST [ Parent ] § Who's dictating? (11+ / 0-)
Some people just have a different opinion than you do. It happens, you know. by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:14:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yep (1+ / 0-)
....and that opinion will be following us into the voting booth. Keep playing dumb. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:36:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § And your point is? (1+ / 0-)
All races have racists, and we all take our opinions into the voting booth with us. by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § That's nothing new (1+ / 0-)
But when they campaign on it, it will be called out. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:11:07 AM PST [ Parent ] · I don't mean to give you a hard time. (0 / 0) I just don't think you should assume that all racism is as commonly perceived. by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:46:01 AM PST [ Parent ] o Neither should you (0 / 0) ...or I should say, the ones who are dictating what is and is not considered racist and offensive to Blacks. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:01 AM PST [ Parent ] § I seriously don't understand (5+ / 0-)
how it is that when one person says he thinks something is not racist, and you, AOG, think otherwise, it is the former who is "dictating" to you but not vice-versa. Is it that only one opinion on these matters is allowed to be honestly held, and the other is per se illegitimate? by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:57:35 AM PST [ Parent ] § She seems to think that her blackness gives her (0 / 0) authority on what is racist. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:58:58 PM PST [ Parent ] § Are you one Black, or all Blacks? (0 / 0) Your arrogance is astounding. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:00:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § So, if a group of Afro Americans claim the sun (4+ / 0-)
rising in the east is "racist" you are the sole authority? Get real. Only in your mind does that exclusive right exist. Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me) by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:19:01 AM PST [ Parent ] § To The Targets/Victims, What's The Difference? (1+ / 0-)
Be it: Paul's Campaign, Romney's, Paul's, Tancredo's, what's the impact on the targets? Do you know? If not, maybe it's you who are claiming "sole authority." by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:12 AM PST [ Parent ] § Me claiming "sole authority"? No, but (1+ / 0-)
I completely reject the notion that real or self proclaimed "victims" are the only definers of what is or is not racist. That is entirely bogus. Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me) by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM PST [ Parent ] § OMG (2+ / 0-)
There were so many things sick about that comment, I don't know where to begin. Shameful. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:54 AM PST [ Parent ] · Apparently, They Really Hold The Opinion (1+ / 0-)
that Racism is different, because there's a D, after your name. And, their abject hostility and latent violence when you even mention that Racism even exists, is palpable. This is sick! by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM PST [ Parent ] · So, go somewhere else with this. (5+ / 0-)
Certain claimants to the Christian faith feel themselves victims to the secular world. They claim there is a war against them. They claim, while pushing their cause for public prayer and non-science as science that everyone else is anti Christian. As self proclaimed victims of a secular war on Christianity everyone else has to just accept that without argument because they are "the victims" in this scenario? Nonsense! So, in your mind, certain people are racist. That is valid in your mind. It may have no more independent basis than the paranoid claims of someone that the world is against them. If you want others to reach the same conclusion, if you want to form a political movement to fight what you think to be racist or a war against your views you have to make reasonable arguments and present proofs that others can accept and rally to for the cause. That is where it gets beyond a lonely and perhaps erroneous or even pathological internal conclusion. Bluntly, your silly Kramer response and the one above indicate to my mind that you are probably too wrapped up in your own views to progress. Then, that may just be my erroneous conclusion in my own mind--even if I do have two pieces of evidence. If I recall you practically lumped one of the leading Democratic candidates with Ron Paul on racism. Can you make a case for that that stands up to argument? Your proclamation it is so reaches yourself and maybe a few like minded others. Proclaiming yourself the sole judge of that is a dead end even if you draft in substantial numbers of a racial minority. That is the road to permanent minority status politically as well. Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me) by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:02:11 PM PST [ Parent ] § Guess The "Real Or Self Proclaimed Victims," (0 / 0) will just wait on you to verify the authenticity of Racism. Yeah, that's the ticket! by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:09:40 AM PST [ Parent ] § Afro Americans ? (1+ / 0-)
Okay Kramer "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § African Americans are not monolithic (5+ / 0-)
which means there is a spectrum of political beliefs out there. It just seems the crucible of shared experience may cause there to seem to be more uniformity than there may actually be. At any rate, Hilary is no worse than the average person of her background one way or the other. For those who are watching the winger blogs, Stormfront and other propaganda is being brought to the fore through attacks on the character of MLK and attempts to portray Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as anti-Semitic. It muddies the water for the Roveniks and allows them to still service their base. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:17 AM PST [ Parent ] § You Are Right (2+ / 0-)
We are not monolithic on all things. But Racism is something we all take very seriously whether we are on the far right or the extreme left. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:09:16 AM PST [ Parent ] § I don't know; I have doubts about Creflo Dollar (0 / 0) but then I remember when Reverend Ike was the icon for the weekly numbers too. There are always a few people anywhere working a scam. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:39:48 AM PST [ Parent ] § I'll give you 99% but I don't think Clarence (3+ / 0-)
Thomas takes racism 'very seriously'. Of course you only went to the 'far right' and Clarance is probably much further to the right than that. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:37:10 PM PST [ Parent ] § Clarence grew up not too far from here (1+ / 0-)
and profited from a system he now disavows. If he had had any integrity he would have declined the SCOTUS nomination. Or as some say, "Tom is as Tom does" by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:50:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § I'm in my later years, (0 / 0) and with the narrowing social circle time enforces on me, I've lost most all my ties to living African Americans. So I would be extremely grateful if you could read this comment I made in this diary and offer your take on this, or ideas about how Afro-American communities feel on the topic. Thank you. Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do. by Jim P on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:25:36 AM PST [ Parent ] § Equivalency (3+ / 0-)
Drawing an equivalency between Ron Paul for saying that "95% of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and Hillary Clinton for having a mid-level campaign surrogate who made a ridiculous but fleeting insinuation about Barack Obama's drug use is something that a lot of people can, and should, find deeply offensive, regardless of race. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § Heh. (0 / 0) A "mid-level campaign surrogate" doesn't do things like that on their own. They're chosen as expendable in case things go south, and this one did. I'm sure that everyone is careful to make sure she's out of the room whenever anything like that is discussed. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:26:05 PM PST [ Parent ] § Being black doesn't mean YOU can dictate it (0 / 0) else we would all have to accept the views of Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, et. al. by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:57:35 PM PST [ Parent ] § obama could have been white (3+ / 0-)
admitted drug use is never a good thing, regardless of when it was. You may recall some of us trotted that out against Bush too. It didn't have anything to do about Bush's race.... I'm 100% certain that she'd have taken the same approach if it'd been Edwards instead. That's not racist. Lowball politics perhaps, but not racists. And yes, I realize I'm pissing in the wind on this one. Reason never prevails when race is mentioned. Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke. by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:03:45 AM PST [ Parent ] § Methinks we used drug use (1+ / 0-)
against Bush because of the hyprocrisy. Not because we're against drug use per se (not that we're for it either, of course . . . .standard disclaimer for the lurking DEA agents) by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:20 AM PST [ Parent ] § Comparing Obama's drug use to Bush's is (7+ / 0-)
disingenuous. Obama confirmed that he fooled around with drugs when he was younger. Bush was a regular cocaine user and alcoholic and says that he stopped using when he was 40. I like Obama and I despise Bush but there is a difference here. 'how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?' Bob Dylan by St Louis Woman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:38:05 AM PST [ Parent ] § Sure, but my point is about Obamistas' racism (2+ / 0-)
there's a difference. But my point is that there's nothing racist about pointing out that admitted drug use is going to be used against you, whether you are black or white or what have you. I mostly see this "Clinton is racist" meme as a cheap trick by Obama supporters trying to play a race card against Clinton because she's white rather than reflecting any real prejudice on Clinton's part. The fact that THIS is what's trotted out just shows how crappy the whole affair is. If it happens against a white person it's politics. If it happens against a black person it's racism. I'd say that's pretty abhorrent a claim to try to raise against Clinton and it's far dirtier pool than almost anything Clinton has done. Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke. by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:40 AM PST [ Parent ] § Let he without stoning cast the first sin (2+ / 0-)
Who among the Boomer and later generations did not inhale? This easy hypocrisy becomes tiring after a while. Smoking a doobie and growing 100 acres of weed are not the same. Experimenting with drugs for a year is not the same thing as decades of hardcore alcohol and drug abuse. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § Who among...? Feingold. (2+ / 0-)
I was in every smokefilled room in Sellery hall freshman year, and he wasn't. Democratic Candidate
for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012) by ben masel on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:26:02 AM PST [ Parent ] § So he had a solitary reefer (0 / 0) not every doper was a sharer which is why I think the GOP inhaled as much as any Democrat in those days. (and even if not, the smoke from rooms down the hall would have been sufficient) by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:42:04 AM PST [ Parent ] § BULL ! (0 / 0) I mostly see this "Clinton is racist" meme as a cheap trick by Obama supporters trying to play a race card against Clinton because she's white rather than reflecting any real prejudice on Clinton's part. Blacks have been called out for using racism tactics as well. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REP FORD was called out by the Black Community for his stupid remarks as well. So were other members of the Black Community like Arthur Davis and Jessie Jackson ( AN OBAMA SUPPORTER) for saying stupid crap about Obamas race. Keep playing dumb. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § I see. Ford's a racist too? (1+ / 0-)
Got some links? (I'm curious about what Jackson and Ford said.) This has got to be the first time I'm aware of that anyone has the nerve to call Jackson a racist. Maybe that's a hint that perhaps the charge won't stick. I still stand by the notion that bringing up the drug use issue is NOWHERE near racism. Try encountering some real racism and you'll recognize the difference immediately. Neither is asking the legitimate question of whether a black man can win racist (it merely ponders the state of racism in the country as a whole), nor is asking whether a woman can win sexist, nor is asking whether a philanderer can win (that other Clinton. See 1996) nor whether asking whether a mormon can win anti mormon, or whether a non-establishment candidate necessarily anti-non-establishment. ALL of these are merely questions about the political landscape f the US and require no racial (or other) animus to raise it. The fact that people try to use this to bring accusations of racism suggests the work of those who are accustomed to seeing racist where ever they see someone with white skin. I despise such behavior, much as I despise genuine racism of any other kind. For the record, I"m not a fan of either Obama or Clinton as both are both too conservative for me. Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke. by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:56:55 AM PST [ Parent ] § Lame (0 / 0) That's not gonna work.You two are no fools. You don't have to be a racist to use racism to defeat a candidate. If you don't know what was said by these people as much attention as it got in the Media, then you truly are clueless. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:50:17 PM PST [ Parent ] · Fair enough... (0 / 0) But that still leaves the fact that pointing out that admitted drug use is a problem for candidates for public office isn't a racist attack. ANY candidate, regardless of race, who has admitted using drugs i the past is going to see it used in the campaign by opponents. If he admitted to being an atheist, it'd be a problem too. Doesn't make it a racists attack to point out that it'd be a problem. And no, I don't scour the press every day so I missed what Ford said. I've been in law school, so I don't follow the press for weeks at a time. My failing I know. I'll take your word that he did. I only ask for links because I"m genuinely cuirious, but I can google just as well as you can. No point making you do the work. Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke. by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:03:08 PM PST [ Parent ] § If you read Robert Ford's entire statement (0 / 0) what he says is not
directed against Obama but stating a fact of life; the race card will be played
against him. I know Robert Ford slightly and to characterize him as racist is
incorrect. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:42 PM PST [ Parent ] § Oh give me a break. (2+ / 0-)
Would you actually expect Obama to go beyond "he fooled around". Christ, Clinton wouldn't even admit he inhaled. by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:28 AM PST [ Parent ] § I think both Bush and Obama are scum... (0+ / 1-)
It's ok to use drugs and get away with it, when you belong to the elites. You or me, we'd have our lives ruined over it. They get a free pass. Then again, Obama might be ok... maybe when/if he gets into office, he secretly plans on gutting the DEA, and refusing to enforce drug law. But he certainly hasn't let on, if that's the plan. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:13:19 PM PST [ Parent ] § I've known plaenty of people who've used a small (1+ / 0-)
amount of drugs and not had 'their lives ruined' by it. The year I graduated High School over 50% of High School Seniors had admitted to smoking Marijuana at least once. I've even known people who when stopped with drugs the police just dumped the drugs on the ground. Maybe it's different here in California, but I think a lot of places are like that. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:46:20 PM PST [ Parent ] § Obama is scum? (2+ / 0-)
What the hell does this even mean? You're really trying to muddy the waters here. Making any kind of equivalence between Obama and Bush is really beyond absurd. False equivalence- you sound just like a repub. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:16:49 PM PST [ Parent ] § That is a complet and utter lie (0 / 0) she infered Obama can not be president because he is a "drug dealer Saying Hillary Clinton said that is a lie. Her campaign ought to claim libel for such out and out lies. You are doing a disservice to Obama for continue to push such a sick lie. by Jjc2006 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:28:42 AM PST [ Parent ] § Things Go Better with Coke (0 / 0) I'm also wondering if there's not some other underlying "strategy" with playing the cocaine meme. Coke has always been the drug of choice amongst the white and white-collar -- especially on Wall Street and Madison Avenue. While pot has a more everyman quality about it. Is there also some other hidden meaning (like "uppity" or something) being played with the mention of Obama's self-confessed youthful cocaine use? by pfeffermuse on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § Um (1+ / 0-)
I'd say the association is less sinister. Pot is generally regarded as pretty harmless, purely recreational, not addictive. Cocaine is a pretty hard-core, serious drug. It is potentially deadly (no one ever OD'd on pot), addictive, and crosses the threshold for what most people would consider a "real" drug vs. something fun and harmless to do at a party. Whether you believe that cocaine use should be legal or not, you have to acknowledge that pot and cocaine are very different substances in terms of their physiological effects, and that cocaine is the harder drug. I don't see anything racial about that. Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:55 AM PST [ Parent ] o That's my definition of a Libertarian (5+ / 0-)
A Libertarian is 100% right 50% of the time and 100% wrong the other 50% of the time. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:59:50 AM PST [ Parent ] § I'd say more like right 20%, wrong 80%. (1+ / 0-)
Other than their anti-imperialism and belief in free speech, I can't say I agree much with most libertarians I've known. Wrong on health care, education, immigration, foreign aid, drugs (I'm all for legalizing pot, but coke and heroin? no thanks), guns (again, I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why not license them like cars), the environment, commerce, etc etc. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:06 AM PST [ Parent ] § Libertarians (3+ / 0-)
Of course, we would say you are wrong on those issues and that there are better solutions available than an ever-growing government and more spending. (Neither of which are sustainable.) Yes, government may function well with the ‘right’ people in charge, but the problem is so few of the ‘right’ people are ever elected. Most are deeply flawed, foolish, self interested men with little inclination toward wisdom, rational thought, or the public good. If the last six years have taught us nothing, it should have taught us that when a government has grown as large and as powerful as ours, we are only one (perhaps two) election(s) away from living under tyranny. All that to say, that I would rather deal with the problems arising out of too much liberty than the problems that arise out of too little. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:15 AM PST [ Parent ] § The problem (0 / 0) is that many who are anti Big Corporations are at the same time pro Big Government Monopoly. The government is scarier because it can use force and has a weapons arsenal. There has never been a good government--Emma Goldman by Libertaria on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:40:48 PM PST [ Parent ] § I hate to get into this in this diary, but... (3+ / 0-)
this is a little hard to pass up: I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why not license them like cars Because the power to license implies the power to refuse to license, and that directly conflicts with: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Driving is a privilege, which can be granted or refused by the state. It is not a right. Possession of a car is not a right, (despite the general societal attitudes we're all familiar with...) Possession of weapons is a right, according to many interpretations of the Constitution. We are men of action; lies do not become us. by ER Doc on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:45:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § I'm a little more libertarian than you (1+ / 0-)
I'm for legalization of most drugs, with an exception to ones (PCP maybe) that cause people to no longer be able to tell right from wrong when they use them. (I'm also for applying very high taxes on them to pay for any socialital costs, which is not very libertarian) Bush's rush towards facism has kind of pushed me towards the NRA's position on guns. Paul's position on immigration actually differs from the Libertarian Party's position (which is open and free borders). by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:20 AM PST [ Parent ] § Libertarian Party is better than RP (2+ / 0-)
And I'd also say the Libertarian Party is better than most small-l libertarins I've known who tend to be somewhere in between Ron Paul's very right-wing libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. And then there are left-wing libertarians who are similar to anarchists but without the more complete class analysis. Many libertarians - the isolationist, gold-bug types who make up a pretty big part of the small-l group - are much more like Ron Paul than the LP regarding immigration. The party has a well worked out, if naive, world view that is essentially both humanistic and humane if one accepts their naive premises about economics, sociology and social psychology. The gut-level libertarians I have run across frequently in my social and profesisonal circles tend to be more solipsistic and hyper-individualitic - and also somewhat more realistic and less idealistic. They are mostly quite anti-immigration out of fear that the newcomers will water down America's "libertarian" values. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:26:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § Oh yeah (2+ / 0-)
I got into an argument over at Reason's Hit and Run blog with a guy who was saying that immigration should be limited since all of "those" people came from "socialist" countries. I called him a racist and a moron who's argument didn't even make sense (if they liked their "socialist" country so much, why did they leave it?). by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:32:44 AM PST [ Parent ] § My boss is a small-l libertarian (2+ / 0-)
And he is likely to vote Democratic in 2008. He has had numerous arguments that he's told me about with felow libertarians regarding immigration and the gold standard. If he were more idealistic and less pragmatic, he'd be a party member. His belief in the magic of markets is pretty crazy imho, but he's pretty sensible on most matters and gets very frustrated with the rants of our office's designated conspiracy-theory-Ron-Paul-gold-bug libertarian. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:42:47 AM PST [ Parent ] § Three things. (0 / 0) Guns are licensed. And, why would you continue to keep heroin (or other drugs) illegal? It doesn't prevent experimentation. It doesn't prevent associated crime. It makes those addicted less likely to seek help, as they fear prosecution. It fuels a black market that causes crime. Things would be better, not worse, if it were decriminalized. Fewer, not more, people would experiment with the crap were they not de facto taboo. And foreign aid? Why should we as a nation spend money on other countries, when we're in debt to the tune of $9 trillion and counting? What aid is it that you think we should be giving, and how does it jive with the reality? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:31:56 PM PST [ Parent ] § Did I say they weren't? (0 / 0) Of course guns are licensed in most states. Most libertarians oppose that. I support the decriminalzation of hard drugs, but not their legalization. There is a world of difference. Libertarian fools want them legalized and just treated as one more thing on the open market. Marijuana on the other hand ought to be legal rather than just decriminalized. As for aid, I support food aid, medical & health aid and in some rare cases military aid. Unlike libertarians I am not an isolationist. As for the deficits, we'd hardly need much over 2/3 of our current military force if we moved from a role of empire to one of "leading nation". And of course, my belief that is most anathema to libertarians, the reality is that our elites are undertaxed. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:47:30 PM PST [ Parent ] § The problem being (0 / 0) The only problem is that many people disagree on which 50% is the right one. But they sure are passionate about it all. by Nina Katarina on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:02 AM PST [ Parent ] o I agree (7+ / 0-)
and I would be willing to bet cash that the comments above mine disputing the facts you mentioned are certainly not coming from African Americans. It's unfortunate that party or candidate loyalty blinds some people from acknowledging the truth and that truth is that the Clinton campaign has been using racism and xenophobia against Barack Obama and the Black Community has taken notice. I think it's a shame that we have people pretty much trying to argue that the entire Black Community is wrong and doesn't know what the hell we are talking about when we point out on our Blogs that Hillary's campaign has been using racist and xenophobic fear tactics against Barack Obama.It's just us, we're all overly sensitive. It certainly cannot be true.Why? Because THEY say so. Certainly Blacks don't have a mind of our own. THEY have to think for us. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:58 AM PST [ Parent ] § Another Obama supporter speaking for the black (3+ / 0-)
community. Did you get permission before you could speak for the whole community? You need to stop. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:00 AM PST [ Parent ] § No (3+ / 0-)
But I do frequent Blogs that are not predominantly one race and one gender so I have a more "diverse" perspective on how this is being taken in the Black Community. Thanks for asking. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:13:33 AM PST [ Parent ] § Oh you visit blogs... (0 / 0) Well you need to indicate the black internet community that you frequent are upset, not the black community. Two very different things. And you still not accurate. Remember a lot of blacks aren't sold on Obama and I could give you the reasons why later on. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:18:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § Why is it okay for posters to call themselves (0 / 0) "anotherObamagirl but not "anotherObamaboy? John Doolittledump Doo Vote Brown by AmericanRiverCanyon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:19 AM PST [ Parent ] § Okay (3+ / 0-)
Don't take this issue seriously if you want. You'll "get ti " later when the exit polls indicate there was a huge backlash to this within the AA Community. Until then, keep acting like you know the way Blacks think more than we do. It has nothing to do with whether we support Barack Obama or not and the fact that you guys are dismissing this based on support for a candidate , indicates you have no clue. "I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:34:20 AM PST [ Parent ] § Well first of all, (1+ / 0-)
Obama girl...if you don't know my race I would advise you not to guess. And this backlash you are wishing for is that...just a wish. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM PST [ Parent ] § In case you haven't noticed, you are not alone. (0 / 0) 2005 US Census Quick Facts Bureau *White persons, 80.2% *Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 14.4% *Black persons, 12.8% *Asian persons, 4.3% *Persons reporting two or more races, 1.5% *American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 1.0% *Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 0.2% by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:23:54 AM PST [ Parent ] § It's A Racist Troll That Should Have Been Banned, (4+ / 0-)
a long time ago. JustinL by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:31:57 AM PST [ Parent ] § Man... (0 / 0) Why don't you come visit me here Washington, DC east of the Anacostia River...and then tell me how racist I am. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:56:09 AM PST [ Parent ] § That's A Threat? (0 / 0) by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:17 AM PST [ Parent ] § Now why would I threaten you (0 / 0) on an internet site about politics? Where is your head? You seem to think you my race...so I'm inviting you to see for yourself. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:55 AM PST [ Parent ] § Overheated (2+ / 0-)
We all get a little crazy before primary season. You are right, Hillary is not a racist. Likewise, the theory that Obama can't win white voters because of his race is BS. African-Americans won't vote automatically based on race, and white voters won't automatically reject a candidate because of race. That's a good thing. It would be good to remember that while we are all sniping at each other. In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson by ivorybill on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:35:23 AM PST [ Parent ] § Higher up in this diary... (0 / 0) I just had an exchange with someone who believes there are cryptoracists everywhere, hiding and pretending to be non-racist to get into office. If this is true, how do we know Clinton isn't one? by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:38:35 PM PST [ Parent ] § There' arent? (0 / 0) There's, like, a whole political party full of them. Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual. by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:39:23 PM PST [ Parent ] § plenty of racists live in Anacostia (0 / 0) what's your point? Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:12:01 AM PST [ Parent ] o I have a problem (0 / 0) with your dumb comments. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:02:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § I Have A Problem With Racist Trolls! (1+ / 0-)
by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM PST [ Parent ] o This is nothing but sick (1+ / 0-)
lying spin. Hillary Clinton has never been a racist or a bigot. Of course that doesn't stop the Obamaites from claiming it, from lying about it. I find it disgusting and such a pathetic turn off that supporters are so desperate they have to label someone racist when history has shown the woman has been actively seeking remedies and change for what racism and SEXISM (albeit, sexism is something that does not seem to bother the Obama folks) has done to many for so many years. So many of my friends have been completely turned off to the Obama campaign for the way they have aligned themselves with Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson for this total lying accusation. It is sad and oh so desperate and is turning true liberals off and it will lose supporters for Obama. by Jjc2006 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:23:40 AM PST [ Parent ] § What's "Sick" Is How Hostile You Get When Racism (0 / 0) is mentioned. by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:38:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § What is sick (2+ / 0-)
is how people feel it is OK to slander someone with the crime of racism when their entire life they have proven to be working against racsism. Some Obamaites seem to think it is OK. I think it is hurting his campaign because everyone knows it is a lie. by Jjc2006 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:45:31 AM PST [ Parent ] § Then Clinton and her numbskull team (0 / 0) should do better than engage in insidious dog whistle politics. She and her team should be smarter than to pull silly, transparent stunts. Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual. by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:42:21 PM PST [ Parent ] § Obamaites? (1+ / 0-)
That sounds like a skin
infection or else the people Moses was ordered to smite on his way to the
Promised Land. At this rate, will everyone be able to tone it down after the
primaries and support someone besides their candidate? by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:40 AM PST [ Parent ] § I Will, Opposing Racial Hostility, Doesn't Mean (1+ / 0-)
I'm going to vote for Obama, during the Primary. I will not. It just means I oppose Racial and Religiously hateful campaigns. by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM PST [ Parent ] o That's the appeal of libertarians in a nutshell (2+ / 0-)
Right on half of the issues, fringe-scary on the other half. They oppose the Bush police state wholeheartedly, and the war on some drugs, and censorship, and religious authoritarianism, and antiabortion laws, and (Paul aside) their philosophy is completely antithetical to racism, sexism, Star-bellied-Sneetchism, or any institution that discriminates on the basis of some kind of status other than one's own decisions and effort. They do, however, oppose affirmative action and the like for the same reason they oppose racism. And they'll turn a blind eye to de facto segregation claiming that if it's not the result of institutional direct racism, the moral thing to do is leave it alone. They also oppose all taxes, all welfare, any regulation of big business, and they want the police, EMTs and fire department to be replaced with private businesses that will serve individuals based on their ability to pay all that the market will bear. The interesting thin about Ron Paul is that, for all his apparent credibility as a man of principles, he's weak in many of the areas where libertarians are usually sensible, like abortion, and now race. He seems more like a business-wing Republican than like a real libertarian. "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § Misconception (3+ / 0-)
any regulation of big business Not entirely true. Unless you're discussing the more anarchist leaning ones. We vigorously support a government that protects our life, our liberty and our property. Thus laws against pollution, corporate fraud, etc. are not necessarily in opposition to libertarian principles depending on how they are written. The problems arise when the laws are skewed to benefit one industry at the expense of another, the proof of real harm or evidence is lacking, or when the government speeds legislation through to appear as if they are 'doing something' or are 'tough'. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:39:12 AM PST [ Parent ] § quote (0 / 0) I once heard someone say: "Conservatives have forgotten how to conserve, as thoroughly as Liberals have forgotten how to liberate." ..forgetting who said it right now... by West on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:46:59 AM PST [ Parent ] o I have a bigger problem (1+ / 0-)
with her supporters here who feel the need to right diaries like this insensitive POS. Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes. by Drewid on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:49:46 AM PST [ Parent ] · Follow the Money as Deep throat said (2+ / 0-)
Is the cash coming from the Neo-Nazi's,The Anti-War crowd or is there a Anti-War Neo-Nazi crowd? Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October by JML9999 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:44:07 AM PST · but . . . but . . . (8+ / 0-)
Ron Paul is for individual rights! He's a defender of the Constitution! That means he has to be okay! /snark> by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:44:12 AM PST o RP makes me sick, but... (7+ / 0-)
I'd like to see the Dem front runners take on the mantle of "defender of the Constitution!" Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... We Won't Get Fooled Again!! GWB by word player on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:46:28 AM PST [ Parent ] § Chris Dodd n/t (0 / 0) Rudy Giuliani, the hero of $9.11 by who threw da cat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:21:39 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yeah but, (0 / 0) front runner. I really like Dodd (except when he's making up extra legal qualifiers to students rights to caucus) but he's too far back to be more than just a runner. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... We Won't Get Fooled Again!! GWB by word player on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:58:22 AM PST [ Parent ] § kucinich - who floated trial balloon (0 / 0) of a jt ticket with Paul. by Hprof on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:31 AM PST [ Parent ] § It'd be like Yin and Yang (1+ / 0-)
EbonyRacist ivory and non racist ivory. But really what does it say about the state of our government that the defense of the most basic elements of our constitution has become so outlandish that the only two candidates who are clearly speaking up in their defense (and not just retroactive immunity, but undeclared war and preemptive war, and on and on) are considered loony. Even worse, they probably are loony. In fact they are definitely loony. So now only crazy people speak up for the constitution. Doesn't it suck that we're at a point where insisting on the right (as the Dem front runners do) to bomb a nation that has never attacked us (Iran)is considered reasonable, even as we agree (or at least pay lip sevice) to the notion that racism against citizens of our own nation is despicable. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... We Won't Get Fooled Again!! GWB by word player on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:47 AM PST [ Parent ] · Even my crazy GOP Brother (3+ / 0-)
Who likes Huckabee thinks that Ron Paul is a joke and finds his followers laughable. There are bagels in the fridge by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:44:38 AM PST o "Who likes Huckabee" (0 / 0) Maybe not the best person for political figures then? by CeciNestPasLeBlog on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:35 AM PST [ Parent ] o Of course he does (5+ / 0-)
Huckles and Paul are as opposite as it gets. Huckles wants centralized government with church authoritarians dictating every part of your life, and he has a little economic populism in him. Paul wants to drown the government in a bathtub and abolish all taxes and safety nets. "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:34:47 AM PST [ Parent ] § They basically aren't even in the same party (4+ / 0-)
They are about as different as Lieberman and Kucinich are. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:10 AM PST [ Parent ] · The Republican Party courts racists... (26+ / 0-)
Consider: The "Southern Strategy" used by Nixon in 1968. The "White Hands" ad used by Helms, link here: The overtly racist content of the anti immigration campaign being waged on our Southern border. (It's all about terrorism, really. I mean, Al Qaeda smuggle plutonium into Arizona disguising themselves as Guatemalans trying to get to work for Mitt Romney. It's not about race, honest, it's about terrorism.) The Willie Horton ad. The "call me" ad against Harold Ford... This list is longer than one can type in a day. Oh, and this is priceless. They find all 4 black attendees to the Republican convention, sit them near each other, and pan the camera back and forth to that section so that they appear "diverse." If you are a racist, the Republicans have a candidate and a place for you. "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order." by 7November on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:45:06 AM PST o Those are harsh words (12+ / 0-)
but I have to agree with you: the GOP has courted bigots of every kind as part of their strategy. Should we then be surprised if, one day, a major candidate or lawmaker in the Neo-GOP is heard publicly proclaiming young earth creationist any less than if they express overt racism? Read UTI, your free thought forum by DarkSyde on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:58:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § Not all Republicans are racists (8+ / 0-)
but some of them are so clueless they don't understand that the policies advocated by the party have racist impacts. What amazes me is that there are educated Republicans who are award that their party courts and coddles racists, and racist belief and policies and does not stand up to them. For example, McCain's self admitted (retroactively!) pandering in South Carolina on the Confederate Flag non issue. "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order." by 7November on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § Dark they prove it daily (2+ / 0-)
Check out any of the responses posted to any story about GOP racism and see if the defense is not an affirmative offense of character assassination against MLK, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. The vitriol is incrediable, as palpable as anything I saw in the 50s and 60s from KKK members in terms of sheer raw hatred. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:09:35 AM PST [ Parent ] o I have seen the GOP racism firsthand... (10+ / 0-)
I was very active in GOP politics (in the Young Republicans too in college) because of my libertarianism at the time and to rebel against my socialist parents. Well, the GOP embraced me in a big bear hug. Said they were truly "color-blind" and loved minorities! They loved talking about Martin Luther King (when they weren't calling him a Commie and--horrors--an adulterer.) I learned they were actually terrified and paranoid of diversity of all kinds. It was nearly pathological. When I rejoined the fold (I grew up) and became active in the Democratic Party, I seldom hear ever hear any racist comments and what I've heard are usually out of ignorance, not racist. Sure, I am generalizing here, I am not too far off the mark. The evidence is overwhelming. A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who....never learned how to walk forward.-FDR by vassmer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:13:22 AM PST [ Parent ] § Roughly similar experience for me, vassmer...... (6+ / 0-)
I grew up in a largely dysfunctional home without parents pushing politics at all, and on my own in college, as a moderate, I became a Republican in the same camp as the likes of Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Jim Leach, etc. My parents were immigrants from India, and as it goes both very liberal although they never even tried to pass on their political values to the kids. My dad was a very active liberal/socialist and my mom was completely apolitical until late in life when at my prodding she became a U.S. citizen and, on her own, a populist liberal Democrat. As a brown-skinned non-Christian son of immigrants I found people in College Republicans at Iowa State to be courteous and cordial enough up front, but there was definite racism that exposed itself in my presence occasionally, and to borrow a saying from home pest control, "for every cockroach you see there's 100 you don't." And all this was back in the late 1980s, a time when the Iowa GOP still had a strong moderate wing. Those days are long gone, and the crackpots have completely taken over. In a time of war, is that really the time to be asking whether we should be at war?...When it is over we should ask whether we should leave. -- Stephen Colbert by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:20 AM PST [ Parent ] · That's why we hated Apartheid (6+ / 0-)
White South Africans were Man enough to say "Screw you. We're racists." They didn't come out with that namby-pamby wimpy "We're cutting job training funding" and "we're increasing sentences for crack cocaine" crap. They just came out and said "We're racists and we're proud of it." Paul is going to have to learn how to be a respectable racist if he ever wants to get anywhere. by Utahrd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:45:27 AM PST · Great bunch they have. (1+ / 0-)
Says a lot about Amerika. -9.00, -5.85 by Wintermute on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:46:56 AM PST o What's with the "k"? (5+ / 0-)
Are you in Europe? We spell "America" with a "k" here in the Netherlands (and Iraq is "Irak", etc.).
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:48:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § I Think That the Poster (4+ / 0-)
Was trying to imply that since we're Americans, and America has racists, all Americans are racists. Shitty logic really. Also, I love your signature. Vote Biden (D-Ascerbia) Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong." by ChapiNation386 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:53:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § As I recall, that was the popular (2+ / 0-)
alternate "hippy" spelling in the sixties. "I wish that for just one time You could stand inside my shoes You'd know what a drag it is To see you" - Dylan by Floja Roja on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:55 AM PST [ Parent ] · FREEDOM (6+ / 0-)
for all white people? New Mexico Politics From the Local Perspective. by fbihop on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:45 AM PST o safety! (3+ / 0-)
Keep 'em out, send your volunteers down to the border until we get that big ol' wall built.
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:48:48 AM PST [ Parent ] o White Christian Males! (0 / 0) They are the last remaining minority group in America that can be legally be disctiminated against with impugnity! "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:36:14 AM PST [ Parent ] o Whiter than thou (0 / 0) You have to remember in a true GOP type democracy that some people are whiter than others, the same as everyone is equal, only some more so. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:11:44 AM PST [ Parent ] · what's unbelievable (9+ / 0-)
is the following that this guy is generating...it's extremely worrisome to me that so many people think this guy is some sort of savior. Harry Taylor for Congress, Courage is Contagious by Fredly on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:48:00 AM PST o Well... (2+ / 0-)
Compared to the other Republicans he does make much more sense. He is right on the war Of course he is wrong on a bunch of stuff, but show me a Republican who is right on more issues. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § Okay, let's explore this. (6+ / 0-)
Well, he's right on the war. I'll give him that one. In my opinion, being against the war means he's been paying attention. At this point, you don't get a special pass for being against the war, it's expected. That we're horribly in debt and we should do something about it? That just proves he can count. Then again, you have a point that this puts him up on the Republican field - save that when it comes to their wallets they seem to be able to count fine. You do realize that there's not enough gold to cover the money we have in circulation, right? You also realize that gold is used in the electronics and computer industries, right? How do you think quadrupling the price of gold is going to affect the economy? Electronic Darwinism by Moody Loner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:26 AM PST [ Parent ] § yeh but check out the underlying reasons for his (1+ / 0-)
opposition; it was the same problem I had in Geometry years ago. Sometimes I ended up with the correct answer for all the wrong reasons. Underlying his opposition is the consistency of his world view. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:13:23 AM PST [ Parent ] § Hmm (1+ / 0-)
At this point, you don't get a special pass for being against the war, it's expected. And just how much against the war is Hillary? That we're horribly in debt and we should do something about it? That just proves he can count. Well then most of the members of Congress right now can count then - on both sides of the aisle. You do realize that there's not enough gold to cover the money we have in circulation, right? Depends on the price of gold. What we have now is the beginnings of an inflationary explosion with no controls on how much money the Fed can print (with we can drop money from helicopters Ben at the helm). Gold employs a discipline on the expansion of the money supply and helps to preserve its value. Under the Fed all we see is a desire to avoid recessions, screw the inflationary impact with the result that soon dollars will be worth a lot less than they are now. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:25:51 AM PST [ Parent ] § Correction (1+ / 0-)
Well then most of the members of Congress right now can count then - on both sides of the aisle. should read Well then most of the members of Congress right now can't count then - on both sides of the aisle. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:18 AM PST [ Parent ] § This point: (1+ / 0-)
Depends on the price of gold. We have enough gold to cover about a quarter of the currency in circulation. This is a rough guess and probably stunningly optimistic. Backing all of our currency in circulation with gold, therefore, would quadruple the price of gold (used in the electronics and computer industries for corrosion-resistant electrical contacts) instantly. Good news if you hoard gold, bad news if you work in the computer industry. And, with that kind of inflationary pressure, bad news if you need to eat. Unless I misunderstand and it would devalue the extant currency by three-quarters. Which would mean dollars would be worth a lot less than they are now. I'd have to talk to an economist to see which one of these would happen. It occurs to me that these choices aren't mutually exclusive. So while it may make sense to base our currency on something, we don't have enough gold to base it on gold. There may not be enough gold for us to base it on gold. Electronic Darwinism by Moody Loner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:09:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § Gold (1+ / 0-)
Interestingly the amount of gold per capita "above ground" had actually stayed quite constant over time. Revaluing gold to 4 times its current price would not be inflationary, except in the field you mentioned. Of course there are many predicting gold will soon be double, no matter what we do. The bigger inflationary problems come from oil (peak oil) and food (soybeans today hit a 34 year high, wheat is at all time highs and rice is soaring too). There will be inflation, but it is due to the loose money policy of the Fed and China's unwillingness to modify its exchange rate (resulting in Chinese inflation). As for gold in general...I believe inflation is on the prowl so I hold 70% of my investments in precious metals and related stocks and 30% in cash (just in case). I fully expect to see inflation take off and the S&P500 to drop this year...and gold to do quite well because the Fed just can't stop printing money. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM PST [ Parent ] § I knew that it was only a matter of time (1+ / 0-)
untill the Gold Bugs came out of hiding to support their idiot leader R.P. If there is one issue that almost all economists agree on is that the gold standard is an idea that has come and gone for good. Anyone seriously pushing for a gold backed dollar needs to do some reading of modern economics and economic history. "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin by Mas Gaviota on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:55:56 PM PST [ Parent ] § I'd be happy (1+ / 0-)
I'd be happy with a government that lived within its means. If it wants to spend more, tax more. The current situation is proof that the kids can't keep their hands out of the candy jar (Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush etc). Its much easier just to keep printing money, or borrowing from the Saudis and Chinese, than to talk straight to the American voter (as Perot found out). So I respectfully suggest that the gold standard could not be worse than what has and what is about to unfold, (though I am not personally a gold standard supporter). Tell me next year at this time that the current system is working. I'm an accountant with an MBA in international finance who trades markets for a living. So maybe I am nuts, or maybe I have to be attuned to what is actually going on under the surface. I guess we will soon see. I am not a Paul supporter but I think he is far from the worst of the candidates. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:36:55 PM PST [ Parent ] § A gold standard would not be better than the (0 / 0) current system. A gold standard does nothing to stop borrowing. I am puzzled by this statement from someone with your qualifications: Its much easier just to keep printing money, Do you really think that the US just prints money when it needs to pay its bills? "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin by Mas Gaviota on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:10:04 PM PST [ Parent ] · nope... (1+ / 0-)
its a bit more complicated than that. Poorly phrased sentence on my part. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman by taonow on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:41:06 PM PST [ Parent ] · In a sense, yes... (1+ / 0-)
Now, let me preface this by saying i'm not a fan of the gold standard and i'm not at all on board with Ron Paul. That said: We sort of are printing money in that we're just borrowing money to pay for everything. It's having a similar effect on our currency value--unsurprising since the effect is basically the same: pumping more raw money into the economy. It's just that we promised to pay all this back, which might actually make it worse than "printing our way out" in the long run! On the other hand, maybe it's a really dirty strategy whereby Bush and crew are trying to borrow so much cash that they devalue the currency, thus making the debts worthless and punishing China's investment. I don't think that's working in the real world, though. The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness! by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:18 PM PST [ Parent ] § Let's pick something else then (0 / 0) If America wants to come out ahead, how about celullite? Makes coinage sort of disgusting, though. by Diebold Hacker on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:18:24 PM PST [ Parent ] § no to all of the above (9+ / 0-)
§ He's not right on the war, because his position on the Iraq war is an extension of his wider isolationism. § He's not right on the federal debt - in the sense that he would solve it by abolishing most of the fed govt. 3. Not right on Am's military role - see #1. 4. Not behold to special interests - you mean special interests like ... what exactly? 5. Right on the gold standard -- well, not in the sense that his wider monetary policy calls for abolishing the fed reserve. by Hprof on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:28:48 AM PST [ Parent ] § Amen (5+ / 0-)
If Ron Paul is "right" on anything, it is only in the most superficial way possible - accidental, even. He's an isolationist who is scared of the rest of the world, an idiot who doesn't understand that government is inevitable and necessary for a nation of 300,000,000 persons, an inexperienced fool in terms of military roles or capabilities, independent of special interests because no special interest is going to back a loser, and medieval in terms of economic policy and his gold fetishism. The guy is a total crank. He's like a weird confederate uncle who escaped from an attic somewhere, and somehow the folks in Galveston, Texas keep sending him back to Congress. In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson by ivorybill on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:41:59 AM PST [ Parent ] · Watch Denzel Washington's movie (4+ / 0-)
"The Great Debaters" - Racism in Texas is alive and well. "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming" by egarratt on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:48:23 AM PST o Haven't seen the flick but, (4+ / 0-)
it does take place during the Great Depression, so hardly a view of the modern age. As a progressive Texan I won't even try to argue that there is not racism, both blatant and subtle, in the state, but let's not pretend that racism ends at the Mason-Dixon line. I've spent enough time in the "north" to know that extreme racism is alive and well in all 50 states. The great irony of racism is that it is an infectious disease that does not discriminate based on color or creed. There's hate all over. I'd even bet that there's a few self-proclaimed Democrats with a nasty racist streak. Yes, as noted, the Repubs have courted the vote, but there's plenty of guilt to be shared when discussing the educational and/or penal systems of this country. I don't believe that anyone's hands are clean. We are raised and live in a racist society, and it would be ludicrous to pretend it has had no effect on each and every one of us, good and bad. Overcoming the insidious nature of racism is only possible through acceptance of our own susceptibility to go down that evil path. It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting. by Little Brother on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:35:42 AM PST [ Parent ] § You should see it, wonderful flick (2+ / 0-)
I agree with your assesment 100 %. As a suburban white kid, I am not 100% racist-proof, never declared I was. But I am decent enough to notice when racism creeps into my life, and I am able to catch and do something about it. I agree with the philosophy, leave things better than you found it. This means, never stop learning and trying to improve upon things. Hopefully this country can get back to that type of mentality (IMO). "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming" by egarratt on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:14 PM PST [ Parent ] · might have thought higher of RP (3+ / 0-)
Until a few months ago when the stories about him being a closet racist came up. He could end up being the biggest snaketongue in the Republican field, because he's been talking the sense so many alienated Americans have been looking for while at the same time having the undercurrent of racism. Who's to say if he were to be elected he wouldn't ruin this country even worse? There isn't a single Republican out there worth voting for now... a good thing, hopefully. Their only hope now is a large general election race. DISBAR ALBERTO GONZALES by danger durden on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:50:14 AM PST o He might screw it up worse. (0 / 0) I'm still voting for him. You're right, there's not a single republican out there worth voting for. And also not a single democrat. But I don't think I can sit this one out like I do so many other elections. I don't believe humans generally have the ability to tell honesty from lies anymore, I see too many willing to only believe honest those things they wanted to hear, and to distrust anyone saying anything else as a "snaketongue". by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:44:26 PM PST [ Parent ] · Thank you for continuing to post this stuff (6+ / 0-)
It always amazes me that there are any liberals out there still willing to support this schmuck. Sean Robertson by Sean Robertson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:50:27 AM PST · Ron Paul on the Civil War (13+ / 0-)
Did you catch him on Russert saying that freeing the slaves wasn't worth the cost of the Civil War? I know that the war was about a lot of things besides slavery, but for him to say that is just stupid. by mikeinsf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:51:50 AM PST o I am sure it wasn't worth the cost (5+ / 0-)
to the Confederacy! :) However, those of us who identify with ideology of the winning states, on the other hand, consider it a great moral victory. Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! by bigtimecynic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:57:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § a great moral victory? (0 / 0) or a pyrrhic one? i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM PST [ Parent ] § Are you implying that the two are (1+ / 0-)
mutually exclusive? Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! by bigtimecynic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:38 AM PST [ Parent ] § sometimes (0 / 0) i don't think you can talk about a whole country and split it into winners and losers. if you kill people, you're no winner in my book. i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § definitely a pyrrhic victory (1+ / 0-)
just think, if the South had prevailed, Commander Codpiece would be preznit of the Confederacy and we would be prospering under president Gore. by wilderness voice on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:27:38 PM PST [ Parent ] o The gradual, paid-for emancipation argument was (7+ / 0-)
discredited at the time of the war! To bring it back up now shows that Paul drank some form of kool-aid. The politics of the soon-to-be Confederate states were about one thing leading up to 1860-61: Find ways to keep the slave economy, and thus slave-based political control, alive. Hunter S. Thompson wrote, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." I want to know who has been getting my checks all these years. by algebrateacher on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:59:53 AM PST [ Parent ] § The next argument was that slavery would have (0 / 0) phased itself out economically and inevitably. However, the nations that banned slavery did so by fiat; I cannot recall an example of compensation for the slaveowners by any government. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:18:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § UK for Carribean colonies (0 / 0) Paid roughly half market rate, but in effect by fiat, as the buyout was not optional. Democratic Candidate
for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012) by ben masel on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:33:45 AM PST [ Parent ] § topic is more complex than I remembered (1+ / 0-)
and deserves a diary of its own to cover all the twists and turns by the Brit government. One thing I did encounter in a brief search was an injunction against "cruel and inhumane masters" who free their slaves due to financial difficulties because the masteres can no longer afford to feed them. Never viewed freedom from that particular worldview or angle before. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:50 AM PST [ Parent ] o Because to a libertarian... (2+ / 0-)
What really is the value of liberty? by Robobagpiper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:00:54 AM PST [ Parent ] § $3.62... nonadjustable for inflation (4+ / 0-)
$2.17 for non-caucasians. (that's 3/5 of the white amount, in case you don't have a calculator) Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! by bigtimecynic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:05:07 AM PST [ Parent ] o not a libertarian solution (7+ / 0-)
to put things in perspective: The fed budget in 1860 was about $60M. The roughly 4 million slaves in the US were worth perhaps $3.5 billion. If the US paid 20 cts on the dollar, we're talking about a federal program of compensated emancipation that would have cost more than 10 times the annual federal budget. Putting aside the morality of it, for a moment -- a fed program of that scope is neither a libertarian or a states rights position. And, oh yeah -- most Southern slaveholders wouldn't sell. by Hprof on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § What is the morality of it? (1+ / 0-)
Seriously? I keep seeing hints and clues here and there that make me think the people here at Daily Kos consider anything but a war to end it as immoral. This makes no sense to me. Some things to keep in mind: Any attempt at a buyout wouldn't be guaranteed to have worked. This doesn't mean that it wasn't worth trying. I think they'd not have paid more than wholesale rates for them. A non-libertarian solution that still worked and avoided 600,000 deaths sounds consistent with Paul's character. There would have been some ratification procedure built into the deal, where if enough agreed to it, the rest would have been forced to give it up also. With those agreeing to compensation putting pressure on the rest, things could have been very different than they were. There would still have been racism, but I wonder if it might not have been less of it, and for a shorter period of time, had this been achieved. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:55:14 PM PST [ Parent ] § wholesale rates (0 / 0) I can't believe I'm jumping into this... why would a slaveholder sell a slave at wholesale rates unless he were forced to? Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:24:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § and if eleanor roosevelt had wings ... (0 / 0) My pt is that Ron Paul's advocacy of the solution is sheer and utter hypocrisy. Whatever the viability of this solution--and of course we can never know--it's consistent with neither RP's professed libertarianism nor his devotion to states rights (which in fact is in some ways stronger than his libertarianism). Remember, on MTP he framed the whole issue by saying that Lincoln was essentially a tyrant trampling the constitution. PS - As to the morality of it - well, for starters, some would say that the people who deserved compensating after centuries of slavery were the slaves, and not the slaveholders. by Hprof on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:39:21 AM PST [ Parent ] o I think the reason is in his heart and mind (2+ / 0-)
he does not comprehend that slaves were human. It is the same problem we see with GWB for condemned prisoners and darker skinned foreigners. There is a lack of empathy, hence his solution for a buyout because the slaves, ultimately, remained chattel. Lincoln understood this basic disagreement would never have an amicable end because the diametric opposition of the two views is too great. Jim Crow proved him right most eloquently. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:16:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § I don't see how anyone can look at that interview (1+ / 0-)
and deny that Paul is a racist. He said that the government should have paid slaveowners for emancipation because that would have honored "property rights." PEOPLE AREN'T PROPERTY! That's the whole fucking point! The "payment" those slaveowners got is that they weren't sued for wrongful imprisonment, wrongful death, and theft of services by the people they enslaved and their descendants. What a dipshit. Anyone who supports him is (a) a racist, (b) a fucking idiot, or (c) a Republican just pretending to support Paul in an attempt to peel off as many Democratic votes to a third party candidate as possible. (The people in (c) are fooling themselves. Paul draws from the Republican base.) The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:59:44 PM PST [ Parent ] · It is interesting and good to know, (2+ / 0-)
but the man doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, so there's no need to worry. by Anaxamander on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:52:04 AM PST · You could have used this : (7+ / 0-)
From the same quote: about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action I have no words. It is hard to choose what to use, he is such a "treasure". by allmost liberal european on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:52:37 AM PST o I'm sure by this statement (5+ / 0-)
he meant folks like Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:00:31 AM PST [ Parent ] § Clarence Thomas (6+ / 0-)
I have been told that Clarence Thomas had a sensible opinion when he was a 1yo kid. He wanted milk. After that..not so much. by allmost liberal european on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § Chocolate milk or white? (4+ / 0-)
It's important, you know... If we Americans analyzed our social problems as much as we analyze pro football, there would be no more AIDS, homeless people, or pregnant teens... by wry twinger on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:11:32 AM PST [ Parent ] · I grew up in the south in the 60's (7+ / 0-)
and heard that kind of talk all the time. Call me stupid, but I thought that those goons had died out. This guy is running for president, and raising 6 million in one day. Damn Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic. by beaukitty on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:54:47 AM PST o Hell, I grew up in the Midwest (9+ / 0-)
in the 70's and 80's and you would hear stuff like this, and still do to this day. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:25 AM PST [ Parent ] § Yes (4+ / 0-)
And don't flame me, but this is a reason I worry about an Obama candidacy. I'm not sure that a lot of our posters from the East and West coasts really understand how, um, primitive life still is in the South, where my relatives are, and here in flyover country. I think it would be a lot easier for this country to elect its first president of color if that person had gained prominence on the national stage over the course of time (i.e., a Cabinet position, speaker of the house, something like that). Most people are not overtly racist to talk to, but I know there are many places in this country where they'd be nodding their heads in tune with some of what RP is saying. That is tragic, but it is fact. Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:21 AM PST [ Parent ] § I completely agree with your analysis (1+ / 0-)
Sad to say, but this is still true in a lot of places, even in areas you wouldn't expect. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:09 AM PST [ Parent ] o The pity is not only did they not die out (0 / 0) but they spread; it is amazing the number of nonConfederate states where there is a controversy over flying the "Confederate flag" or using it as a symbol. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:47 AM PST [ Parent ] · Let's see... (4+ / 0-)
He hates blacks, Jews, and gays. Ahhhh, also known as the "KKK hat-trick". "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray. You wore blue." by dfb1968 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:55:01 AM PST o hmmm (0 / 0) explain the hates Jews and gays part. Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41 by jimsaco on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:22:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § I'll Take the Gay Section (3+ / 0-)
Employment Non-Discrimination: Ron Paul is opposed to Employment Non-Discrimination Bill that is inclusive of gays, lesbians and transgender. Hate Crimes: Ron Paul opposes a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill. As a matter of fact, he opposes any hate crimes legislation. Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Ron Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but does not support a federal amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Ron Paul voted to support a ban of gay adoptions in Washington, DC in 1999. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Ron Paul supports keeping the military ban on gays and lesbians. He said, "I think the current policy is a decent policy." Will someone else please tackle the Jewish question? by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:09:53 PM PST [ Parent ] § Nah... (0 / 0) I appreciate the effort, but frankly, my statement stood for itself, and only the delusional would still think it required explanation. "I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray. You wore blue." by dfb1968 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:59:04 AM PST [ Parent ] · What exactly is a "semi criminal"? (2+ / 0-)
You only shoot people while playing Grand Theft Auto? Seems like an utter nonsense word with no definition. Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! by bigtimecynic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:55:03 AM PST · Not just a racist (6+ / 0-)
If you look at his reasoning, it appears that he considers anyone who disagrees with him on the free market (whatever that means), welfare or affirmative action to be at least semi-criminal. And yet he still claims to be committed to individual liberty. by cybo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:56:51 AM PST o If you disagree with R. Paul on just on semantics (1+ / 0-)
can you elevate your status from semi criminal to a mere quasi criminal? Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! by bigtimecynic on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:00:03 AM PST [ Parent ] · Imagine the Paul/LaRouche independent run (10+ / 0-)
It's coming. Two whack jobs for the price of one. If you want to vote for somebody with whom you are in perfect agreement, be prepared to put your name on the ballot : Tom Schaller by captainlaser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:57:18 AM PST o LaRouche? Ron Paul wouldn't be so scary (2+ / 0-)
in that case. But what if Ron Paul chooses a Veep candiate who is less obviously crazy? Insofar as Paul was against the Iraq war from the beginning, he could be a very real threat to our Democratic nominee. Unless our nominee has very strong anti-war credentials of their own. We got 212,000 voters, they got 115,000. HUGE HUGE WIN for all of us. by Bill White on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:01 AM PST [ Parent ] § If you are Democrat and you vote for Ron Paul (4+ / 0-)
YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT! I mean the guy has led the Libertarian party and now is running as a Republican. If he runs as an independent, will that make him palatable (a la Lieberman)? Come on, we are wasting time worrying about Ron Paul. Pat Paulsen was a more viable candidate. If you want to vote for somebody with whom you are in perfect agreement, be prepared to put your name on the ballot : Tom Schaller by captainlaser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:50 AM PST [ Parent ] § Paul is noteworthy for a few reasons (2+ / 0-)
§ He's quite different that all the Republican canidates (still bad, just a totally different kind of bad). § He can potentially fracture the alliance between social and fiscal conservatives. That is, when he loses (and he will lose-his support is in single digits), many of his supporters won't vote for the eventual Republican nominee-heck, they might vote for our guy (and this is why I disagree with Kos here on attacking him). 3. He might run as an independent or Libertarian after losing in the Republican primaries. Now, I think this will help us, drawing away support from the Republican canidate, but there is a danger that anti-war types might go with him over our canidate, especially if our canidate is not considered to be all that anti-war (that is, if we pick Hillary). If Obama is our nom, I think an independent run by Paul helps us. Maybe Kos is looking ahead to an indie run from Paul and making sure this doesn't happen. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:42:54 AM PST [ Parent ] § Of course I would NEVER vote for Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
That does not mean we can ignore him. If he runs 3rd party and plays up his anti-Iraq war message, we could very well bleed voetrs from the Left to Ron Paul. And that will make it impossible for our candidate to move just to the Left of the Republican. Classic triangulation strategy is to bid a $1.00 than your opponent. He/she bids $50.00 you bid $50.01. Without Ron Paul, our candidate can tack right on Iraq with every confidence that the Republican will be even further right. Ron Paul screws that up. Imagine McCain/Huckabee running for the Republicans and they are "pro-surge, Bush was right, Iraq is a great victory." Ron Paul is running 3rd party and says "I voted against the Iraq war. A total FUBAR" -- What should the official DNC Iraq platform plank be? If we tack closer to McCain we risk losing anti-war voters. But to not tack Right will annoy the DLC. We got 212,000 voters, they got 115,000. HUGE HUGE WIN for all of us. by Bill White on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:10:02 PM PST [ Parent ] § It's not wasted time (0 / 0) Even a losing third party bid would still give legitimacy to his views. If you don't fight extremism when it begins it becomes tomorrow's "centrism." The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:06:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § Or what about the other way? (0 / 0) What if the GOP primary winner were to choose Paul as his veep? Hard to believe that they wouldn't look at that delicious pile of money and screaming horde of followers and at least make an offer. Paul could probably be bought for some small concession, and many of his neanderthal followers could be conned into toeing the line. This is the thing that scares me most about him. As an independent, he'd probably siphon off more of their crazies than our crazies. But put him in the fold, and look out. Damn right I'm angry by Strat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:42 AM PST [ Parent ] · Many of his supporters would agree with him (9+ / 0-)
If we could give a mgic truth serum to many of the smart, hip, educated oyung white males who support Ron Paul, we would see the racism - no, not just racism, bigotry, that flows through their mids. To believe that any spect of "libertarian" political economy can work without erasing human history and starting fresh in some kind of weird blank slate like an ideological reverse image of khmer rouge Cambodia is inherently deeply racist. Of course history is irrelevant when you view only economics, business and the sciences as valid intellectual pursuits. I've known too many of these smart young anti-war, pot-smoking, "socailly liberal" "open-minded" types who harbor a vicious disdain for the have nots, espcially the have-nots whom they can dehumanize as being of an inferior race. A few of Ron Paul's backers have been suckered by the anti-war lure. All too many, really buy 90% of the package. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:00:58 AM PST · just what are his own words? (12+ / 0-)
The Ron Paul campaign has been trying to play this statement down as something that wasn't written by Paul himself, but instead the words of a staffer that Paul didn't vet. That may even be true. It's so hard to tell what a politician really believes, and when he is pandering for votes. So Ron Paul either is a racist, or employed someone who is, or it's all a big mistake. Impossible to really know. But there are other things that are a red flag for me. Like the town hall meeting where he says he doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution: Ron Paul is a medical doctor, and he doesn't believe in evolution. So he's either an idiot, or a liar pandering for votes from the xian right. He says in one breath that the question of evolution is a scientific matter, then in the next that it's a theological debate. I watch Ron Paul on MTP recently. He says he wants to get rid of the federal income tax, but not replace that source of income. We'll just make it up in spending cuts. When Tim Russert asked him how much revenue the income tax was, all Paul could say was "a lot". He couldn't even come up with a ballpark figure. The thing that scares me about Ron Paul supporters is how they defend him. They say it doesn't matter what are his personal beliefs, because as president he'll represent the people, not his own views. I can't imagine a more deluded view of a politician. "Instead of asking what you could do, you ought to have been asking what needs to be done." by khaavren on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:25 AM PST o I love it! (1+ / 0-)
A month or two ago folks here derided Kucinich for leaning Ron Paul's way as a running mate. And they derided Paul as a kook without a chance. Now it seems folks are a lot more concerned and serious in there attacks against Paul now that he's the top netroots fundraiser. He's created an internet movement that matches what I've seen on the street. Many young progressives like this guy's intellectual honesty. People are yearning for the populist and Paul fit's the bill. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:34:38 AM PST [ Parent ] § "intellectual honesty"????? (1+ / 0-)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:16:52 PM PST [ Parent ] § is reading or thinking your problem? (0 / 0) Did you even read what i wrote? The guy is either stupid or a liar. Saying people like Ron Paul's intellectual honesty is like saying people admire Barry Bonds for his integrity and good sportsmanship. "Instead of asking what you could do, you ought to have been asking what needs to be done." by khaavren on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:47:24 PM PST [ Parent ] · the moral bankruptcy of libertarianism (24+ / 0-)
What amazes me about Ron Paul is how appealing ideological libertarianism has become to so many Americans. I don't think they understand what they're getting themselves into. Previously, I assumed that most of Ron Paul's supporters were selfish white men who don't want to pay taxes or be told that they can't smoke pot. However, a recent incident convinced me that selfishness is not the motivating factor that drives most mainstream Paul supporters. About two weeks ago, I was at a bar in Washington D.C. I met a 22 year-old college student who told me that he was "proud" to be a Ron Paul supporter. I replied that I didn't understand why anyone in their right mind would support Paul. This was how the conversation went. ME: With all due
respect, I think that Ron Paul is nuts. The point here is not that this young man was particularly selfish. I don't think he was. I think the problem is that people have been so conditioned to believe that the government "doesn't ever do anything" that they can't see the forest through the trees. Hurricane Katrina showed that like it or not, there is a continuing need for governmental services in the United States. by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:56 AM PST o That exchange is worth a milion dollars. (11+ / 0-)
May I pass that on? Libertarianism is just another simplistic, reductionist, short sighted, REALLY FUCKING DANGEROUS point of view. I know many of us are deeply worried about the theocrats, but as much as a fear them, I worry far more about the libertarians. I can only hope that both of these dangerous fringe groups who take essentialy beautiful and true kernels of truth and turn them into destructive ideologies are stripped from the GOP in this election cycle. by pHunbalanced on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:13:58 AM PST [ Parent ] § by all means (2+ / 0-)
By all means, please feel free to pass it along to whoever you feel like. I too fear the libertarians, but fortunately, I don't think their arguments can stand on their own two feet because it makes zero sense to begin with. (Theocrats are scary too, but they tend to be internally consistent). by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:37:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § What is dangerous is the War on Drugs (0 / 0) Hayek's work is nuanced, comprehensive, and far sighted. If only the spineless among the Democrats could be persuaded to cave in to the Libertarians instead of to Bush and McConnell, things would be much better. by Eustace Tilley on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:20:39 AM PST [ Parent ] o Try interviewing 22-year-old Obama supporters (4+ / 0-)
Then pick the stupidest one, transcribe the interview, and come back here and post something saying how Democrats are all stupid. Come on, I dare you. See how that flies on kos. Sorry, this logic doesn't wash. If you want to criticize Libertarian ideology - and there is much to criticize in the naivete of many of its assumptions - please do so with some substance. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand by CA Libertarian on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:22 AM PST [ Parent ] § whatever (2+ / 0-)
It was an anecdotal observation; I don't claim that he spoke for all libertarians. by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:38:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § no (0 / 0) the Paul kids are complete morons. On three separate occassions now, when confronted by some of the Paul kids holding signs on streetcorners in Seattle, I told them I don't vote for Republicans. All three times, at least one person responded by saying he isn't a republican. They had no idea he is running for the republican nomination. None. It wasn't on the signs they were holding, so they didn't know. Morans. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are teh sux by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:06:30 PM PST [ Parent ] o Libertarian social engineering (6+ / 0-)
A lot of libertarians are actually pretty into the whole social engineering aspect of it. They like that if you shrink the government far enough, the government won't have the resources to provide what people actually want. This forces them into a rather narrow range of choices--more limited freedom, actually--and that narrower range is what is desired by the libertarian. They call this "freedom", but you actually have less ability to do what you want--because many of your choices are now financially out of reach. This sort of "freedom" also conveniently ghettoizes the disadvantaged minority groups, which may appeal to ron paul's followers quite a bit. A healthy democracy with an accountable government increases people's choices with decent education, healthcare, and schooling, among other things. If I am bankrupted by cancer, then even if I survive, my freedoms are drastically curtailed. I see no "liberty" in that option. If I am born to a family too poor to fund a private education, and no public education exists, then I have less freedom than if I went to a public school. The wealthy person, meanwhile, has less freedom due to higher crime and social unrest, less social mobility, and less innovation in society (because talent is wasted in poverty). Nobody wins. Drop by Mackerel Street: Lit & Photo Blog by decembersue on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:34:16 AM PST [ Parent ] § exactly (1+ / 0-)
Your post highlights the negative side of libertarian ideology that would come to light were it ever implemented in reality. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude endorsed by so many libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives doesn't work, especially if people can't afford the boots in the first place. by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:41:22 PM PST [ Parent ] § Right-wing libertarians, that is. (0 / 0) eom Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual. by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:07:39 PM PST [ Parent ] o Bush and the GOP are responsible (3+ / 0-)
for that conditioning you mention. They've convinced people that the only thing the government is good for is to inflict suffering and rob the people blind. Small wonder, then, that someone like Ron Paul, who promises to get rid of government entirely, has so much appeal. Unfortunately, eliminating government isn't the answer. by limpidglass on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM PST [ Parent ] · Our children isn't learning..... (5+ / 0-)
This quote by (fictional) Lewis Rohschild sums it up..... They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand. So desperate are the people for a true anti-war candidate that they're willing to waste hard earned money on a racist. Iowa to America: Change is coming to a theater near you. Get dressed! by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:02:09 AM PST · Pay No Attention To The... (8+ / 0-)
... Drug War behind the curtain. Sure RP is a douchebag, but let's not forget the ten ton pile of racist shit on the living-room carpet that EVERY SINGLE "mainstream" - D or R - candidate wholeheartedly supports: the patently, actively and maliciously racist war on drugs.
by Harry Tuttle on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:02:39 AM PST · In Paul's defense... (6+ / 0-)
...he claims that was written by a ghostwriter without his knowledge before it was published (although you would think if your name is on the freaking newsletter, you would at least read it before it goes out). From Paul's Wikipedia article... In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[60] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[9] by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:03:24 AM PST o But why let it be published? (3+ / 0-)
If you don't agree with it, why let your name be associated with it? The style may "diverge widely from his own", but if he allowed it to be put out under his name without immediately refuting it or offering a retraction, they belong to him lock, stock and barrel. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:10:01 AM PST [ Parent ] ���������� His story is... (4+ / 0-)
...that he had this on going newsletter, and in one issue, the guy he had write it wrote this crap when he wasn't paying attention (all the racist articles apparently were only in a single issue of the newsletter). He fired the guy, but didn't want to admit (or thought nobody would believe) that he didn't actually write the thing when this was pointed out in 1996, but then admitted it in 2001. The fact that the racist articles appeared only once, and the fact that nobody has ever heard him say or write anything similiar ever before that or since (and this is a guy who never shuts up) makes me believe him, although it also demostrates a complete lack of good judgement in letting the issue go out without his knowledge and refusing to appolgize for it immediately or when it was first mentioned as a campaign issue. Of course, his occassional support by various Neonazi/racist groups makes people suspicious (although I think they support him due to the fact that his policies happen to match theirs, such as him being against birthright citizenship and government support of the poor). by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:23:58 AM PST [ Parent ] § Could well be (0 / 0) that the backlash from that one set of articles was enough for him to realize that he needed to keep it quiet as well. Five years is a long time to wait to admit something like that. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:58 AM PST [ Parent ] § Not true (2+ / 0-)
It came up in the 1996 race and he didn't disavow the newsletter then. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:40:02 AM PST [ Parent ] § Um, I said that (2+ / 0-)
He fired the guy, but didn't want to admit (or thought nobody would believe) that he didn't actually write the thing when this was pointed out in 1996, but then admitted it in 2001. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:04:15 PM PST [ Parent ] § But in his 1996 comments (1+ / 0-)
he stood by his earlier comments -- even if they weren't "his" (a laughable proposition on many levels -- Junior didn't write "Axis of Evil," either) and just said they were made in the context of statistics of that time. And, as Neiwert points out in the post I linked, Paul's more recent "clarification" is of the "Multiculturalism = Racism" newspeak that isn't exactly inconsistent with what he was supposedly disavowing. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:13 PM PST [ Parent ] § What is your source... (1+ / 0-)
...for the claim that Paul "fired the guy"? Ron Paul fans are forever making this claim, but they never give a source for it. And Paul made reprehensible statements in a lot more than one issue, you should know. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:35:58 PM PST [ Parent ] § How Do We Know This To Be True (0 / 0) all the racist articles apparently were only in a single issue of the newsletter Is this poster wrong when he says Paul refuses to release his newsletters? by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:49:32 PM PST [ Parent ] o "In Paul's defense"? (8+ / 0-)
Ron Paul is utterly indefensible. HIs support here is jawdropping... Defend marriage. Make divorce illegal. by jarhead5536 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:22:25 AM PST [ Parent ] § I don't believe Paul is a racist (4+ / 0-)
I don't support him for other reasons, however. In any case, tactically, we should want Paul to do well in the primaries, in order to cause as much chaos and bedlam as possible in the Republican race, so whichever canidate eventually becomes the nominee (probably Huckabee at this point) will be wounded as possible. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:39 AM PST [ Parent ] § "HIs support here is jawdropping" (1+ / 0-)
Freedom is popular! by szilard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:32:50 PM PST [ Parent ] o Just because the writer is wearing a white robe.. (9+ / 0-)
doesn't make them a ghostwriter... If we Americans analyzed our social problems as much as we analyze pro football, there would be no more AIDS, homeless people, or pregnant teens... by wry twinger on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:11 AM PST [ Parent ] o More significantly, the quote is from 1992 (2+ / 0-)
15 years have passed. Surely, the critics have some new material by now. Personally, I find this comment offensive, but the attribution to somebody else and the lack of more contemporary justification of Paul's "racism" is more significant. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand by CA Libertarian on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § More contemporary justification (0 / 0) Provided at least as recently as this Sunday's interview on Meet the Press. He said that the federal government should have paid southerners for emancipated slaves and that the Civil Rights Act wrongfully interfered with property rights. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:16:43 PM PST [ Parent ] o This is but one of many incidents that indicate.. (3+ / 0-)
...racisim or at the very least shocking racial insensitivity. Will you try to explain away his votes against civil rights legislation and social programs that help the poor? At some point Ron Paul has to be defined as the crackpot that he is. by Trial Lawyer Richard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:08 AM PST [ Parent ] § He's a libertarian (2+ / 0-)
Of course he's going to vote against all forms of government assistance to the poor. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:20 AM PST [ Parent ] § exactly (6+ / 0-)
"My ideology is more important than the suffering of actual people" is perhaps even more shocking and repugnant than simple racism. Live Free Or Do Whatever It Takes So I Don't Die by nasarius on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:08:54 AM PST [ Parent ] · A Paul supporter (3+ / 0-)
was mocking my
candidate because as just telling people what they want to hear and won't get
his plans through congress. That conservative's argument amounted to. Don't vote for someone
who tells you what you want to hear because they won't be able to get it done
and the're unrealistic. This person worked for John McCain's campaign in 2000. So much for the Straigh Talk express. Obama! by fisheye on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM PST · Paul "leaners" among Democrats need to read about (5+ / 0-)
Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, in the approved high school textbooks, looks like a darling for Democrats to admire and emulate. But he was a terrible racist. He was thoroughly infected with lesser-race concept and had grown up with the "lost cause" story. Yes, people with the right opinions can be horribly wrong about something else. There is only one reason for any money to flow to Paul from kossacks: He may be convinced to run as an independent, which may cut a percentage or two from the Republican nominee. Hunter S. Thompson wrote, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." I want to know who has been getting my checks all these years. by algebrateacher on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:57 AM PST o percentage or two (2+ / 0-)
i'm not sure if that percentage will come specifically from the R side..... i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:41:25 AM PST [ Parent ] § That's why I said a percentage or two... (1+ / 0-)
...instead of, say, five percent. There would be a split but I think (think, mind you; perhaps hope) the Republican would take the worse hit. Hunter S. Thompson wrote, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." I want to know who has been getting my checks all these years. by algebrateacher on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:45:54 AM PST [ Parent ] § I think it depend on who our nominee is (0 / 0) If Obama is our nominee, a Paul indie run is good for us. If Clinton is our nominee, a Paul run is bad for us, because anti-war voters might vote for him over Clinton (but less so over Obama). by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:49 AM PST [ Parent ] o Good Point...Pres. Wilson Was Open KKK... (4+ / 0-)
...sympathizer in spite of his good work in promoting world peace. Few Americans acknowledge that Wilson was the first Southerner to be elected President after the Civil War and his virulent racism reflected his background. 'Birth of a Nation' was screened at the White House and lauded by Wilson for its depiction of history at a time when the movie was being boycotted for content that was brazenly racist and inflammatory for that time. [And in case anyone mentions, I don't want to hear squat about the technical marvel the film was, Wilson was praising the portrayal of the era] I also find Sen. Byrd (D-KKK) no less offensive than Ron Paul. And it doesn't take too many clicks to find words and deeds by Sen. Byrd that span decades from the 1940s straight through the 90s to put him in the Bigots Hall of Fame. But since he's a Democrat and like Ron Paul, opposes the war, most here given the Senator a pass. by Grand Poobah on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:57:06 AM PST [ Parent ] o Wilson unsavory in many ways (2+ / 0-)
Jim Loewen also points out that in many ways, Wilson was as close as we ever got to a dictator. He was really bad on domestic dissent. by Robobagpiper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:11 AM PST [ Parent ] · Huckakos! Huckosbee! (6+ / 0-)
Beware, Kos is a paid Huckahitman! So now it's racist to be against the war? Look up to the blimp, not down to the past! /faux Ron Paul fanboyhood. (-2.75, -4.92) | Barack Obama: Best chance in a long time by Addison on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:08:42 AM PST o Kang (0 / 0) Look up to the blimp, not down to the past! We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom! Live Free Or Do Whatever It Takes So I Don't Die by nasarius on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:11:43 AM PST [ Parent ] · Ron Paul is a communist! (humor) (4+ / 0-)
Recently there was a Ron Paul event at Berkeley, and the organizers put together a big sidewalk chalking campaign where they had the following Ron Paul = PEACE... and Ron Paul = FREEDOM which lead to the inevitable Ron Paul = PEACE & FREEDOM Those of us in California may recall that that's a minor communist/socialist party out here. Last election they ran Leonard Peltier as their presidential candidate. imagine the audacity of Ron Paul trying to muscle in on that turf! Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke. by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:09:08 AM PST o I never understood the Ron Paul Revolution signs (2+ / 0-)
...where the letters EVOL in revolution were printed backward and blocked off, so they say love. I always associated libertarianism with greed, not love. by Geotpf on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § And you associate taxation and redistribution (0 / 0) with love? by lanceman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:13:59 PM PST [ Parent ] · People racism will never go away... (1+ / 0-)
That's just the facts. But what makes racism have a longer life is calling something racism when it isn't there. For example, some Obama supporters calling Hillary racist. That's just dumb. You do nothing but hurt Obama and the black race as a whole when you do such things. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:10:08 AM PST o Uprated to offset TR (0 / 0) I don't think this is worthy of that. The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket. by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:20:25 AM PST [ Parent ] § Thanks... (1+ / 0-)
Some people should not have the ability to trollrate. by JustinL on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:05 AM PST [ Parent ] § ok Justin you are a liability to the (0+ / 0-) white race.....wer'e even now. Obama: what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:27:22 AM PST [ Parent ] o I never called Hillary a racist (2+ / 0-)
I have said it has appeared that some of her surogates and supporters have engaged in racist dog whistle politics, and it has put off many voters in the african-american community. Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes. by Drewid on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:33 AM PST [ Parent ] · RonPaulTardBots (4+ / 0-)
Thanks for picking this up, Kos. Got in a pissing contest w/a RonPaulBotTard earlier last week here at Crooks and Liars where they tried to deny that Paul has a racist bone in his body. The very next day news broke that Paul was keeping a donation from the founder of the white supremacist group Stormfront. Didn't hear a peep from the 'Tards then, I wonder why? What Paul supporters seem to miss is OK, let's that say Paul himself isn't a racist, but then why do so many racists gravitate towards him? ~Nyc PS: Whoa, hi Ben Masel! I remember you from protesting Reagan when he was in NYC at a press conference with Al D'Amato, good to see you're still around! by Digital Components on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:56 AM PST · "Freedom" for Ron Paul is freedom for the rich (5+ / 0-)
Libertarianism 101. The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves. by Joe B on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:14:40 AM PST · Talk about a "peckerwood" nation (4+ / 0-)
Sadly, he represents a lot of folks in our country. Racism is deeply woven into the fabric of our life. Republicans are especially prone to these type of hypocrisies of critical thinking. by Keone Michaels on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:15:38 AM PST �� Goes to show ya... (1+ / 0-)
...ANY Republican who opposes the Iraq war or supports any other popular progressive issue or ideal is nevertheless still highly suspect and should be fully vetted before even a hint of a shadow of support is thrown their way by a progressive. There's usually a reason why they remain Republican. To me, a racist who wants to bring the troops home, is a dumb fuck who wants to bring the troops home. Maybe a little like a parrot who says 2+2=4, but from time to time says 2+2=5. The first one's true, but so what? MR. WHITE: Smoke? MR. PINK: I quit. (pause) What, you got one? by dov12348 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:15:50 AM PST · Brown v Board of Education (8+ / 0-)
Here is where I started suspecting Paul's racism. FINAL
VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 176 Yeas
Nays PRES NV Anyone want to guess who the only opposing vote in recognizing the 50th anniversity of and commiting to the decision to integrate schools? by blank on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:16:49 AM PST o The smart Republicans... (0 / 0) just didn't bother to vote! If we Americans analyzed our social problems as much as we analyze pro football, there would be no more AIDS, homeless people, or pregnant teens... by wry twinger on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:31:55 AM PST [ Parent ] o Check the Dates (3+ / 0-)
I should also point out that while Kos's posted Paul quote is almost 16 years old, his vote against Brown was in 2004. So, no he can't just say that this vote was ancient history. by blank on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:57:52 AM PST [ Parent ] § And just this Sunday (0 / 0) He came out against the Civil Rights Act, as well as emancipation without reimbursement to slave "owners." The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:21:10 PM PST [ Parent ] o Paul... (0 / 0) ...doesn't believe that any such "recognitions" are within the perview of Congress and thinks they are a waste of time. He votes against all of them, as did (I may point out) 14 Repubs and 11 Dems. (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian by Sparhawk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:31:42 PM PST [ Parent ] § Misread Vote Count (2+ / 0-)
[Paul] votes against all of them, as did (I may point out) 14 Repubs and 11 Dems. You misread the vote count. 14 other Republicans and 11 Democrats did not vote. Only Ron Paul voted against the bill. by blank on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:56:12 PM PST [ Parent ] · The last domino (3+ / 0-)
You know, Paul was the last Republican left with enthusiastic (as opposed to resigned) support. If this gets out, "none of the above" really will be the only popular option for Republicans. David Broder, of course, says this is "terrible news for Democrats". I say, brokered GOP convention. No one will get enough delegates to wrap it up before August. They'll spend the early part of the summer continuing to clobber each other and convince everyone (correctly) that the rest of the field is unfit for office. And they'll be turning to Paul and Hunter to play kingmaker. Good times ahead politically. "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:18:14 AM PST · Ron Paul supporters are the dumbest people alive (3+ / 0-)
Seriously, what is up with these people? If you ask someone why he or she likes Ron Paul, they can't give a straightforward answer. It's all crap like FREEDOM (like kos says), or get out of Iraq (which the Dem. would do), or how they don't like government and Ron Paul is the anti-gov. candidate (which makes no sense at all). "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes by mconvente on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:20:31 AM PST o They're not as dumb as the Huckabee supporters. (1+ / 0-)
"...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:44:14 AM PST [ Parent ] o That's the dumbest comment alive. (4+ / 0-)
I'm not a Paul fanatic
but I've been observing the phenomenon here in the streets of Portland, Oregon,
the past month or two. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:44:57 AM PST [ Parent ] § Which is funny (5+ / 0-)
because Ron Paul is probably the most dishonest person in congress today. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:48:52 AM PST [ Parent ] § Hmm. Voted against the AUMF (3+ / 0-)
Sounds pretty damned honest to me. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:05:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Claims to be against earmarks (5+ / 0-)
yet put in for millions of dollars in shrimp research for his district. He then voted against the final bill, thinking people would be stupid enough to actually not think he was a total hypocrite. With the number of Paultards around, it seems to be working with some people. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:25 PM PST [ Parent ] § Paultards? (1+ / 0-)
Nice. You won't
address his early anti-war stand but would rather dissect so called
hypocritical earmarks ALL congressmen make at one point or another to keep
their seats. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:09 PM PST [ Parent ] § Sorry (2+ / 0-)
I agree with his anti-war stand. There are a lot of anti-war politicians who aren't lying racists. As far as earmarks, most congressmen don't hold themselves as being strict constiutionalists like Paul does. The funny part is that Paul is one of the biggest porkers and a lot of his projects are for "bridge to nowhere" type of crap. Of all the members in congress, no one is even close to being as much of as a hypocrite as Paul. But that's his M.O. - his action doesn't remotely much his talk - in reality he is the most dishonest person in congress today. Calling someone a Paultard is more insightful than any of the comments made by the Paultards here. What is juvenile is supporing a disgusting piece of shit like Ron Paul. As I keep telling the Paultards, I think DavidDuke.com is for you. You'll be welcomed with open arms. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:56:19 PM PST [ Parent ] § I think the first comment to this diary (0 / 0) says we should all copy and paste and send to family supporters of R.Paul. I would be very offended to be sent the type of comments you just dumped with the vitriol totally out of proportion to sane discussion. You don't like R. Paul. Which is fine. Try making your case without the pejorative diarrhea dribbling down your pant leg and you might have a chance at some consideration of your case by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:07:15 PM PST [ Parent ] § You just don't get it (2+ / 0-)
The diarrhea here is the support for Ron Paul. The guy is a serial liar, overt racist, and utterly contemptable human being. It has been made very clear that this is a Democratic webiste, and not a place for Paultards to lie about their Republican candidate and excuse his bigotry. Today, Kos (he of DailyKos) spoke out himself on Paul's racism, probably because the idiots who support Paul keep dumping their bullshit on his site. I don't have try for some consideration of my case. My case is very clear (and again 1is the "case" adopted by this website) and the Paul supporters are too stupid and too full of denial to be convinced anyway. I just want you to take your Ron Paul garbage somewhere else. I have even suggested some websites, like DavidDuke.com, where your support for Ron Paul will be welcome. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:36:29 PM PST [ Parent ] · "Utterly contemptable human being"? (1+ / 0-)
Oh boy. Dolan, let's not pull any punches here. Ron Paul = Hitler Stormtroopers love Hitler. So stormtroopers heart Ron Paul. I think you in fact are missing the point of the Paul phenomenon. But the cozy, insulated bubble of a Kos diary will always protect and enable lines like your's above to support the worst approach at convincing anyone you have a clue. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:52:38 PM PST [ Parent ] o You are missing the point (2+ / 0-)
I'm not pulling any
punches. You don't need the Hitler connection, Stormtroopers do heart Ron
Paul. The Ron Paul phenomenon is people like yourself you don't understand what a sick fuck Ron Paul actually is. If people knew the truth (or were willing to listen to the truth) most people wouldn't support him. Words like Nazi and racist get thrown around pretty easily, but when you are dealing with someone like Ron Paul, they are appropriate. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:04:55 PM PST [ Parent ] § And you are devaluing the impact (1+ / 0-)
of your accusations and argument by doing exactly that: throwing around hyperbole. No one can take you seriously. You protest too much with the classic race card/Hitler approach. Now am I at all surprised that a former libertarian could be caught in a photo opportunity with skin heads contributing to his candidacy? It does not surprise me and it by no means convinces me he's a "sick fuck". Yes it is relevant to the discussion with any Ron Paul supporter Is this guy aligned and sympathetic to the white supremist movement: By all means bring it out. INTELLIGENTLY. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM PST [ Parent ] § Why are you so quick to defend Paul supporters? (1+ / 0-)
Who cares about their so-called "phenomenon"? The simple fact is that they are one of two things: Either they know Paul's true ideals and actively support them (fair enough) OR They are ignorant, getting behind Paul because some of their dopey friends - who by the way post Paul spam on dumb sites like Ebaumsworld.com and CollegeHumor.com, not exactly prime internet real estate for our future leaders of America - tell them that Paul is the "revolution" candidate or the "anti-establishment" candidate. Without Paul as their hero, these same young "concerned" voters would be back to not caring about politics. And to be blatantly honest, I'd rather have that than them touting one of the most, if not most dangerous Republican candidate of them all. "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes by mconvente on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:25:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § Either/Or doesn't cut it in this case. (4+ / 0-)
I agree with Greenwald: This just isn't how elections work. You don't get to create your ideal candidate by slapping together all the important beliefs you have. You have to pick from the ones who are actually running. And since every candidate has some views on some critical matters that are bad, even horrendous -- even the good progressive Democratic candidates -- that means that everyone will end up supporting a candidate with horrendous views on some important issues. Only those who are manipulative will use that fact to suggest that the person supporting a particular candidate must share the horrendous views or must be indifferent to the issues in question. The truth is that everyone has to decide what issues should be prioritized and weigh them. If those who support Paul are guilty of deprioritzing abortion rights, then those who support (or will support) Clinton or Obama are guilty of deprioritzing issues of America's militarism and executive power abuses. And while abortion is a critical issue, so are those issues. That's intelligent discussion. Paul represents something other that the either/or thing. His platform generates an incredible amount of interest because young folk want a true change in how American power is projected in the world. The other candidates are proposing more of the same with different levels of how they rearrange the deck chairs of domestic policy. People are done with that approach. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:43:07 PM PST [ Parent ] § Even dishonest people (1+ / 0-)
occasionally get one right. Teh stoopid, it is strong in you. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:20:00 PM PST [ Parent ] § Paul voted against the war... (2+ / 0-)
hence he's a dumb
stoopid ignoramus who happened to pull the wrong lever when voting. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:39:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § Big fat hairy fuckin' deal (0 / 0) He didn't vote against the war because he thought it was a bad idea, he didn't vote against the war because he's a committed pacifist--he voted against the war because he doesn't think we have any business doing anything outside of our own borders. R-n P--l is like a broken clock--he may be right once or twice a day, but he's still broken. So, yeah, people who support him are indeed stoopid. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:58:07 PM PST [ Parent ] § Ok, maybe not dumb, but surely ignorant (2+ / 0-)
I don't even need to go into the reasons why Ron Paul supporters are ignorant - just read Kos's front page post earlier today. If your ideals are anti-privacy, racism, nativism, and misogyny, then Ron Paul is your candidate. I really doubt that all of those "vibrant young concerned Americans" know that Ron Paul supports those very ideals - in their mind, he's just the anti-establishment candidate, and in their warped view of government, he's their guy. How a Congressman is anti-establishment is logic that only Ron Paul supporters have, but you hopefully you get my point. "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes by mconvente on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:59:07 AM PST [ Parent ] § I get your point and your view. (0 / 0) Not dumb but plain
ignorant people, to paraphrase it. You fart in my general direction. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:17:16 PM PST [ Parent ] § That's right... (2+ / 0-)
Because all the young and concerned people of Portland, Oregon support a politician that is openly racist, nativist, anti-women's rights, among other negative qualities, just because he's against the Iraq War. And you think these people are not ignorant? And talk about my "flatulence" words, when your scatological comments are quite unappealing as well. You think you're all fancy with your use of "fart" and "diarrhea", but I bet you don't even have a clue what scatological means... ha "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes by mconvente on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:28:47 PM PST [ Parent ] § Well then. (1+ / 0-)
I seem to have to submit to your description of me as an ignorant illiterate. So I must be a Paul supporter if that is true. You don't understand (and hence are irrationally threatened) how Paul is generating the interest of young, critically engaged voters. But go ahead. Slam them as brain dead. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:48:46 PM PST [ Parent ] · Ron Paul is not a racist (7+ / 0-)
Kos, this is REALLY old news. We all know about the 1992 Ron Paul Survival Report cited here. As you can see from his Wikipedia entry, the article in question was ghostwritten, and Paul has acknowledged "moral responsibility" for allowing it to be published under his name, but has disavowed its racist content. His claim to this affect appears to be largely believable, as nothing else publicly attributed to him indicates a similar sentiment. Also, as you can see from the linked Wikipedia entry, he apparently quite liked Barbara Jordan, and was particularly upset about the comments in the letter besmirching her. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:22:15 AM PST o Click the link, like kos said n/t (2+ / 0-)
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:28 AM PST [ Parent ] § I did (1+ / 0-)
... by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:22 AM PST [ Parent ] § I clicked on what... (5+ / 0-)
... I thought was a link to a "1992 article" which turned out to be another dkos diary. So I clicked a few links in that diary and kept coming up more dkos diaries trashing Ron Paul. Why is kos and so many other Democrats so concerned about a guy running in the single digits in the polls? "Ripeness is all." Shakespeare by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:27 AM PST [ Parent ] § because a lot of us kossacks like him n/t (1+ / 0-)
i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:43:55 AM PST [ Parent ] § Maybe... (2+ / 0-)
... but I don't think that's it. I think it's because kos and a lot of other Democrats are upset because they think that all the internet money Ron Paul is getting should be going to a Democrat. :) "Ripeness is all." Shakespeare by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:51:00 AM PST [ Parent ] § Don't know about Kos (1+ / 0-)
But I would prefer that money from liberal donors go to a candidate who supports the Civil Rights Act. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:27:17 PM PST [ Parent ] § Links to links to links on Dkos server! (3+ / 0-)
Kind of an echo chamber of fear and loathing about Paul here. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:49:12 AM PST [ Parent ] o And it only took him 10 years (4+ / 0-)
to disavow the newsletter content. If the newsletter really managed to get written, published, and mailed without Paul's awareness of the content, at some point after its publication he surely must have become aware of it. But it appears that he took no action (like, say, sending out a letter at the time to all subscribers apologizing for the content of that particular newsletter). It's only a decade later, when questioned by a reporter, that suddenly it's a ghostwriter and he knew nothing. Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:43 AM PST [ Parent ] o And his votes against Civil Rights legislation... (4+ / 0-)
....Those are all coincidences? Mistakes? You are an apologist for Ron Paul's wingnut excesses. by Trial Lawyer Richard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM PST [ Parent ] § Ron Paul's stated view on this topic: (2+ / 0-)
"(It) not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." Agree or disagree with this sentiment, but it is clearly not motivated by a racist outlook. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:09:26 PM PST [ Parent ] § So Paul didn't appreciate impact of Jim Crow? (0 / 0) It seems to many are
too willing to forget that BOE did not lead to integration until 1970s in many
states, some twenty odd years later. To state that the Civil Rights Act took
away individual freedoms argues that not only does a person have a right to be
a racist, he has a right to treat other people as he views them. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:32 PM PST [ Parent ] § Are you on crack? (2+ / 0-)
To reduce the Civil Rights Act to a dispute over property rights is inherently racist. It is to legitimize the idea that people have a "right" to discriminate on the basis of race that can be taken away. To be an American is to accept the fact that you have no "right" to deny someone else's right to engage in commerce, simply because of the color of their skin. In the same vein, Paul said that slave "owners" should be "compensated" for emancipation, but overlooked the fact that said slaveholders had obtained the benefits of unpaid labor for several years. Ron Paul's views are both racist and unAmerican. He is a bad, bad, man, and people shouldn't support him just because he supports one of their goals for the wrong reasons. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:32:02 PM PST [ Parent ] § Just watched the Tim Russert clip... (1+ / 0-)
...you referenced previously. In a nutshell, what he said was NOT that slavery should have continued, but that the civil war was not necessary to end it. I don't agree with him on that - although he makes an interesting, if flawed, point that every other country in the world ended slavery without a civil war - but, once again, I saw nothing racist in his position. I maintain, Ron Paul is not a racist. And yes, there is a property rights dimension to Civil Rights laws, in as much as they are dictating what can and can't be done with private property. As you can see from the quote above, Ron Paul's point on this is that that property rights dimension gets in the way, and subverts the actual stated purpose of the law - that being, eliminating racism. Once again, I don't fully agree with him on this, but it is clearly not a racist position. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:38:55 PM PST [ Parent ] o He may not be an overt racist but he (2+ / 0-)
certainly is a racist enabler, or at the very least indifferent to racism. Don't believe me ask Don Black over at StormFront. But go ahead and vote for a racist enabler. Is that sort of like enabling neo-con criminal nutjobs like Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush et al. Large swaths of the US population are as dumb as a sack of hammers. Guess like the Coen Brothers so famously put it in OBWAT "hard times flush the chumps." Votes for Paul will likely come from chumps. Undescriminating chumps at that. "An entire credulous nation believed in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus was really the gasman." Gunter Grass by rrheard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:39 AM PST [ Parent ] § Here's his rationale (1+ / 0-)
"'If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money,' the Associated Press quotes Benton as saying. 'And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does.'" You can agree or disagree with his decision here, but he hardly sounds like a racist enabler to me. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:17:59 AM PST [ Parent ] § I read it. And my comprehension is fine. (2+ / 0-)
Spin it however you like. There is only one defensible option when the leader of Stormfront donates $500 to your campaign--"I Ron Paul will not accept donations or lend any legitimacy to the specious immoral ideology or political agenda of organizations like StormFront and am returning his poisoned donation." Any thing less is you being purposefully obtuse. But I'm not really surprised. People have an incredible capacity for self-delusion and rationalization. It also says this about Paul--he's willing to take money from anyone including Holocaust deniers and any other fringe lunatics, not from position of principal, but rather political expediency. I'm not sure which is worse being indifferent, enabling, obtuse, or cravenly power seeking. Wise up. "An entire credulous nation believed in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus was really the gasman." Gunter Grass by rrheard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:38 AM PST [ Parent ] § Then perhaps you'd care to explain away (0 / 0) the fact that R-n P--l seems routinely to appear on Stormfront radio, and the fact that Stormfront has a big ol' "Donate to R-n P--l" button prominently featured on its web site? (Hell, no, I'm not linking to that sewer; you can use teh Google.) Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:18:44 PM PST [ Parent ] § Are you saying... (0 / 0) ...that Ron Paul makes in-person appearances on Stormfront Radio? If so, please cite. If, however, you are simply referring to the fact that he is a frequent topic on that outlet, and they seem to like him, it doesn't follow from that that Paul has endorsed the site simply because the site has endorsed him. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:07:38 PM PST [ Parent ] § That's what the site seemed to be saying, yes (0 / 0) That R-n P--l makes in-person appearances on Stormfront Radio. There was a ginormous graphic touting that fact some while ago. I'm sure if you check Orcinus's site, he'll have the details. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:56:26 PM PST [ Parent ] o He "authored" it, even if he didn't write it (1+ / 0-)
If it supposedly didn't represent his views, then why did he defend the piece in 1996? The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:23 AM PST [ Parent ] § He shouldn't have defended it in 1996... (0 / 0) ...but he was apparently protecting the writers' confidence at that point, and thus couldn't publicly disavow the remarks in the letter. Thus, it appears, he chose to spin them instead. I am not defending him on that decision. He should have disavowed the remarks the moment they came to his attention. People often make mistakes when personal loyalty is involved, as appears to have been the case here. by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:57:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
He came up with this "ghostwriter" excuse in 2001, so this mysterious writer's cover has been blown for more than six years. Why don't we have a name? If this writer exists, surely we'd know who it was by now... or it was never necessary to protect his/her/its "confidence" in the first place, certainly not at the cost of defending racist writings as one's own. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:44:28 PM PST [ Parent ] o Wikipedia? (0 / 0) You gotta be shittin' me. Try Ron Paul, Meet the Press, December 23, 2007. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:25:59 PM PST [ Parent ] § The entry is thoroughly cited... (0 / 0) ...and well sourced. Is there anything particular in it whose veracity you question? by Aaron Bonn on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:52:37 PM PST [ Parent ] · Agents of Disinformation (2+ / 0-)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you..." "But something funny happened on the way to dismissing Dr. Ron Paul. The people weren’t buying it. In fact, his contributions exploded to the point where he now is better positioned financially then all of his opponents and it was all done through local folks, not mega-corporations. Unable to ignore him and laugh him off the national stage, we now see the third tactic in the Gandhi truism taking place; they are now attacking him. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:08 AM PST o That's because (3+ / 0-)
We hope that, unlike Hitler, he never makes it to the "win" stage. Paul has always been in bed with racists. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:30:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § Hitler? Hahahahah... (3+ / 0-)
I think your post basically sums up the ridiculousness here at Dkos concerning Paul's rise. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:02:56 PM PST [ Parent ] § Hahahahaha.... (2+ / 0-)
I think you and several other Paultroons aren't likely to enjoy privileges at this blog for very much longer. Go play on someone else's sidewalk, wouldja? We're sick to death of R-n P--l here. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:21:56 PM PST [ Parent ] § Privileges!? (2+ / 0-)
Hee hee. This diary was
posted about Ron Paul. Kos posted it. The link I clicked said
"discuss". You are going to be sorely disappointed in this site if you think it's about censorship and lock-step group think. Privileges. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:34:51 PM PST [ Parent ] § Yes, privileges (1+ / 0-)
What you apparently failed to notice when you signed on to this site is that it's owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the guy whose name is at the top of the marquee, there. (And the same guy who posted this diary.) He gets to do whatever he wants. The rest of us, not so much. If he decides tomorrow that in order to post here, you have to write everything in Greek dactylic hexameter, you'd better be up on your epic meters and have a copy of Smyth to hand. Markos wrote a post critical of R-n P--l. You, on the other hand, are running around like a good little Paulbot and defending him. It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that the administrators of this here blog have taken notice of that fact. So do, please, keep prating on and on about not needing any stinkin' privileges. It will only lessen the amount of time you still have here in which to do so. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:54:50 PM PST [ Parent ] § Gotta love the irony (2+ / 0-)
in 118461 lecturing 6921 in how the site works. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:36:55 PM PST [ Parent ] · Paul may not be racist, but.... (4+ / 0-)
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." According to the DOJ, Paul is right on the numbers. But, as they say, correlation doesn't mean causation: the stats include race but are silent on poverty, racism, and historical and systemic discrimination. A much better argument could be made against men, regardless of color. Offenders in State
prison Estimated number Sex Race The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence. - John F. Kennedy. by Pork Sword on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:26:54 AM PST o repetition (4+ / 0-)
again and again, this statement is NOT Dr. Paul's, despite repeated swiftboating. Try as folks might to use repetition to create facts.... the quote wasnt his, never was, and he's disavowed its content several times. Oopsie! by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:57 AM PST [ Parent ] § Again (6+ / 0-)
The statement was in Paul's newsletter. Many years later he claimed that a staffer wrote it without his permission. Only the very dumbest people on this earth would actually buy that explanation, or believe that it somehow makes Paul not a racist. As it turns out Ron Paul supporters also happen to be the very dumbest people on the planet. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:45 AM PST [ Parent ] § Oopsie back at you (3+ / 0-)
He defended the piece in 1996 and didn't disclaim it until years later. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:30:57 AM PST [ Parent ] § The whale guy has been discredited (1+ / 0-)
by lanceman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:17:05 PM PST [ Parent ] · Vernon Robinson endorsed Paul (3+ / 0-)
thats enough to convince me RP is an asshole. "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02 by ParaHammer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:28:40 AM PST · That Still Makes Them Less Likely to Commit Crime (4+ / 0-)
I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. And with the corruption in DC, I think it's safe to assume that 99-44/100 percent of white-collar white males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. And they're doing it to an entire country of 200+ million people, and getting full health insurance, lobbyist/corporate money, a regular paycheck, and a great retirement package, with little likelihood of ever serving any jail or prison time. by pfeffermuse on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:18 AM PST · Wow! (1+ / 0-)
And this is a man that legions of people are following. I've even heard African Americans on C-Span say they would vote for him. I'd like to see him be asked about these comments today, not that I think he'd shy away from them, but hopefully to let some of his followers listen to their man. by africa on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:48 AM PST o again and again doesnt make it true (2+ / 0-)
He didnt make the comments. He's disavowed the content several times, publicly. Yet, folks continue to repeat the false attribution. Again and again. Wierd. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:46 AM PST [ Parent ] § Wrong (6+ / 0-)
The comments were in the Ron Paul newsletter. And you are stupid enough to buy his lame explanation and repeat it again and again. Wierd. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:54 AM PST [ Parent ] § Even if he didn't write it himself... (2+ / 0-)
(and I don't buy that for one second) If the article came out in his newsletter and Ron Paul quickly responded, condemning the sentiment, that would be one thing.... However... the fact that he let the article sit for years... sorry, no dice. Even if he didn't write it, he also didn't quickly condemn it. by zeytoun on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:01:15 PM PST [ Parent ] o Reply (3+ / 0-)
And this is a man that legions of people are following. I've even heard African Americans on C-Span say they would vote for him. Yep. Because: - This newsletter article was brought up months ago. - Paul gave an explanation that was plausible. - There has been no further credible evidence that he shares those views. - The platform he runs on is incompatible with racism. - He has a long congressional record that backs up his belief in constitutionalist/libertarian ideals. But, at least kos didn't take the extra step that the neocons did and call a candidate interested in stopping foreign aggression and ending the socialist state a Nazi. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:47:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § LOL (5+ / 0-)
The explanation is plausible only if you are a complete moron, which most Paultards appear to be. As far as his congressional record, it is very hostile to civil rights, and even the claim that he is a libertarian is a joke. Simply put, there isn't a more dishonest, more hipocritical person in congress today. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:58:57 AM PST [ Parent ] § Which (2+ / 0-)
Is more plausible... That he missed an article put into a newsletter his staff sent out. Or that he is a closet racist (and/or Nazi) who has managed to keep his beliefs under wraps (and even repudiated racism) for the last 15 years all in a secret bid to win the White House under a pro-freedom platform thereby to suddenly bring apartheid to the US? by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:35:24 AM PST [ Parent ] § I don't know how you can do crack and blog (4+ / 0-)
There is nothing closeted about Paul's racism. And he sure isn't repudiating his support from white supremicist leaders. Pro-freedom? What a joke. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:40:50 AM PST [ Parent ] § Kindly (2+ / 0-)
Point out statements that are racist beyond this oft blogged about newsletter and I might take the accusations more seriously. Or alternatively, if your problem is with policy positions, kindly point out which ones you find racist and why.
Uh, yes, he has. He and his campaign have both said they do not support those groups or their views, but if they still want to send money to a candidate that is opposed to what they stand for, they are free to do so. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:03:43 PM PST [ Parent ] § Ok (3+ / 0-)
His voting record on civil rights and voting rights is simply terrible. And I'm not quite sure how he has repudiated white supremicist support when he gets his picture taken and takes money from the leader of Stormfront. I'm not kidding when I tell Paultards to try DavidDuke.com. If you hit that link, you'll go right to an article by - you guessed it - Ron Paul. So let's summarize: DailyKos - racists like Ron Paul and his supporters not welcome. DavidDuke.com - Ron Paul, racism welcome. Stories by Ron Paul himself* I think you are at the wrong website. * no guarantee that 10 years from now he won't claim that a staffer wrote it without his knowledge. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:33 PM PST [ Parent ] § Response (4+ / 0-)
His voting record on civil rights and voting rights is simply terrible. More specifics. The man espouses (and to my knowledge) votes according to the constitution, which outlines our rights and details that these rights be protected equally, so I would suspect that the divergence on the issue is the normal gulf between a libertarian view and a liberal view of civil rights (or Negative vs. Positive rights)
So... someone posted an article/comments from Ron on their website, therefore, Ron must completely agree with 100% of that webmaster's views? Yeah... I think you are at the wrong website. And now we fall back to ad hominem. West, you were half-right about the slur. You were just wrong about who would fall back to that position. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:33:06 PM PST [ Parent ] § LOL (2+ / 0-)
Someone else wrote it, not me. Just because they send me money, doesn't mean I support them. Just becasue they post my articles (which btw, Paul has to license to them and he can control) doesn't mean I support them. That's how Ron Paul rolls. The "libertarian" view of civil rights resulted in the disenfranching of minotities, while the "liberal" view of civil rights was the result of the struggle of the civil rights movement. Ron Paul may put a fancy label on it, but its a view that has been terrible to minorities. My suggestion that you are on the wrong website is not an ad hominem attack - its friendly advice. Again, people at DailyKos don't like Ron Paul and don't bend over backwards to excuse his racism. You feel like you are being slurred here. Over at DavidDuke.com, your positions on the "libertarian" views of civil rights and your support for Ron Paul will be welcomed with open arms. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:49:07 PM PST [ Parent ] · Please... (4+ / 0-)
The "libertarian" view of civil rights resulted in the disenfranching of minotities, while the "liberal" view of civil rights was the result of the struggle of the civil rights movement. No. Overt racism led to the dehumanization of African Americans. Greed led to their enslavement. And both, to America's shame, led our ancestors to ignore the idea of 'all men are created equal' when it came to people with different skin color. Later, post-Slavery, it was often political leaders, often in concert with businesses that continued the sad legacy of racism and tried to codify it. Had libertarian principles and the idea of natural rights been applied to everyone at our nation's founding, there would have been an end to slavery with the Constitution and our westward expansion probably would not have happened. Over at DavidDuke.com, your positions on the "libertarian" views of civil rights and your support for Ron Paul will be welcomed with open arms. Which is, frankly, absurd and shows you know nothing about libertarianism or the idea of natural rights as Equal rights, individualism, a firm belief in equality under the law, and the support of folks to pursue happiness as they see fit conflict with racist ideals. You feel like you are being slurred here. No, the other good folks at DailyKos have thus far been civil. But whatever. If such scant nonsense is convincing enough for you to believe the worst about the man, there's little anyone will be able to say to convince you otherwise. by Dread972 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:21:11 PM PST [ Parent ] · I like Ron Paul simply because he's running. (0 / 0) And I am a Kossack.
So your logic here M. Dolan is wanting. Kucinich is the other candidate consistently bashed here in the same way despite his overwhelming record and integrity. So I would strongly consider voting for intellectual honesty, integrity above all other reservations about his past libertarian escapades that naturally would attract all sorts of "independents". by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:41:38 PM PST [ Parent ] o Put aside the racism (2+ / 0-)
There is no more intellectually dishonest candidate than Ron Paul. His words and his voting record do not remotely resemble each other. That guy who kept money in the freezer has more integrity than Ron Paul. The fact that you believe Paul has these traits just shows that you are completely ignorant about your own candidate. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:48:23 PM PST [ Parent ] § He's not my candidate. (1+ / 0-)
I like that he's
running. I like the phenomenon. I find it refreshing to see folks
excited about his positions on the war and the corporate politics of
Washington. Democrats will always be reactive and threatened if an independent rises to offer an alternative to business as usual. Besides. He says he's not going to run as an independent. I think he wants to change the Republican party to better reflect what ordinary citizens want and don't want from government. So why all the fuss here about his candidacy? He hasn't a chance, does he? Right? He's dumb and ignorant and a racist and loves Hitler and couldn't possibly appeal to any but the most unsophisticated idiots. He's human excrement after all without a whiff of support within his own party. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:05:44 PM PST [ Parent ] § You got it now (0 / 0) He's dumb and ignorant and a racist and loves Hitler and couldn't possibly appeal to any but the most unsophisticated idiots. He's human excrement after all without a whiff of support within his own party. That's about it. And that's why we don't want to talk about him here. Kos's diary should serve as one final shut the fuck up to anyone who wants to debate Ron Paul at this site. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:27:57 PM PST [ Parent ] § God Damn You People Are Thick! (0 / 0) by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:28:39 PM PST [ Parent ] § heh (0 / 0) Well done! Whatching for you to be labeled with some slur in 4...3...2... by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:46:13 AM PST [ Parent ] § He hasn't kept them under wraps (3+ / 0-)
He's very openly hostile to civil rights legislation. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:38:11 PM PST [ Parent ] § Do you have a hard time (1+ / 0-)
picturing a Republican as a closet racist? I don't. My choices: 1. Obama. 1. Edwards. ... 9,999,999. Hillary. by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:57:25 PM PST [ Parent ] § summary (1+ / 0-)
It is in many folk's interest to smear the guy as fast and hard as possible. It looks as if this is the best they've got. ...and it's not much. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:11 AM PST [ Parent ] § Seriously, dude (5+ / 0-)
If you think Paul isn't getting a fair shake here, DavidDuke.com and Stormfront will give you a warm welcome. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:44:19 AM PST [ Parent ] § Vanguard News Network too (3+ / 0-)
by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:17:21 PM PST [ Parent ] § They'd also give a warm welcome to Glen Greenwald (1+ / 0-)
This just isn't how elections work. You don't get to create your ideal candidate by slapping together all the important beliefs you have. You have to pick from the ones who are actually running. And since every candidate has some views on some critical matters that are bad, even horrendous -- even the good progressive Democratic candidates -- that means that everyone will end up supporting a candidate with horrendous views on some important issues. Only those who are manipulative will use that fact to suggest that the person supporting a particular candidate must share the horrendous views or must be indifferent to the issues in question. The truth is that everyone has to decide what issues should be prioritized and weigh them. If those who support Paul are guilty of deprioritzing abortion rights, then those who support (or will support) Clinton or Obama are guilty of deprioritzing issues of America's militarism and executive power abuses. And while abortion is a critical issue, so are those issues. by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:06:39 PM PST [ Parent ] § His platform is fully compatible with racism (2+ / 0-)
This is black helicopter stuff. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:32:30 AM PST [ Parent ] § There is nothing (2+ / 0-)
plausible about Ron Paul. I'm surprised he was ever elected dogcatcher, much less to Congress. His ascendancy is proof positive of the deplorable level of political awareness, education and dialogue in this country. Paul makes me want to vomit. My choices: 1. Obama. 1. Edwards. ... 9,999,999. Hillary. by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:56:36 PM PST [ Parent ] · Will he choose David Duke as his VP? (2+ / 0-)
I used to think Paul was a harmless nut-job. Not anymore. I wonder if all the people that donated those millions of dollars to his campaign knew he was a hood-wearing racist? "If I was Vice President, know what I'd do? Pretty much anything I wanted to." - Joe Walsh, 1992 (channeling Dick Cheney) by myiq2xu on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:24 AM PST o I think they do know (2+ / 0-)
and like many of the posts defending him, belive that it's just a smear. People who support RP have a very high level of dedication. They are very small, maybe a 100,000 people. Less than the size of a county in most states. But they are very vocal. You see their signs all over, but not in many yards. You see them walking and shouting, but you see the same people every time. I've seen my local five RP's on youtube videos and the local news several times. The real problem is that they have money. That 100k people are pumping lots of money into his campaign. If they all were to max out their donations it would be about $230 million. we are lucky they are mostly broke college kids. Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes. by DrillSgtK on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:50:47 AM PST [ Parent ] § Good sign-off line n/t (0 / 0) by Abra Crabcakeya on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:00:27 AM PST [ Parent ] · the clowns in "Dumbo" refer to elephants (0 / 0) as made of rubber, so you can't hurt them. that's about how Ronnie Paul must feel about African Americans. of course, taken back about 50 year intervals, Irish, Italians, and perhaps, the American Indian. by jackinthebox4 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:34:53 AM PST · False Attribution (1+ / 1-)
Why would someone post such disinformation when it can be so easily found out as false attribution? We can do better. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:36:21 AM PST o We can do better (4+ / 0-)
than post excuses for a wretched piece of shit like Ron Paul. Take your garbage to Stormfront or DavidDuke.com. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:04 AM PST [ Parent ] § wow (0 / 0) nice. name calling is the best we can do? by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:24:03 AM PST [ Parent ] § yes, you fucking ron paul... (6+ / 0-)
...deviant, we can do better... to you fucking ron paul idiots... ...who are barking and yelping below about the new york times article, who only have read fucking wiki! you cretinous yobs, you repulsive fucking racist-enabling deviants ought to still be not so fucking stupid as to believe wiki as the source of truth without checking it out first. the ron paul wiki was written by your co-deviants from their basement hovels, and although you might find that 'good enough', the people who still walk on two feet and do not have snot running from our noses know better. further, the article from the new york times is written by a right-wing nut who is the senior editor of the weekly standard and writes for the financial times. the idiot paulites, such as yourself, who attempt to incorporate the gravitas of the new york times to the ron paul campaign are wrong, times two! the article qualifies his rebuttal, and is written by a knuckle-dragging republican... by james risser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:42:02 AM PST [ Parent ] § By All the Rules Of This Board (2+ / 0-)
I ought troll-rate you. Have a 4 instead. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:36:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § LOL (2+ / 0-)
The reasons for the "name calling" are pretty well documented, including in this diary. You are an apologist for racism. I doubt you will get called any names at the websites I suggested. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM PST [ Parent ] · Good (0 / 0) I'm glad he's an overt racist. Look, folks, we can't say we need a dialog about race in this country and say that race and racism are still important issues and then jump on and denounce anyone who comes out says what they really feel about the issue. We bitch about racism when it's the dog-whistle type AND when it's the overt type. We seem shocked that these attitudes still exist, but maybe it's our apoplexy that keeps them around. It's the "if something you says pisses off DailyKos, you must be on to something" sort of thing. Can we all just calm down a little and just explain why the guy is incorrect instead of all the "See, I told you he was nutjob" commentary. That's not the kind of discussion about race this country needs. Cuz I tell ya, if I copy and paste this and send it to my Ron Paul fan roommate, he's just gonna see it as one more example of why I shouldn't be reading DailyKos. I applaud Ron Paul for manning up and saying he really thinks blacks are 95% fleet-footed criminals. Instead of a guy like Mitt Romney who gets all teary eyed thinking about his dad hugging Martin Luther King Jr. and then freaks out about Mexicans invading sanctuary cities. And finally, we should all support Ron Paul in the Republican primary simply because it pisses off Sean Hannity. We can all get behind that, right? Sean Hannity is way eviler than Ron Paul. I'm just flossin'! by Jumbo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:36:57 AM PST · I supported Paul... (2+ / 0-)
I feel 'slimy' for supporting an apologist for racism. The denial of racism and slavery is similiar to being in denial of the Holocaust. What an atrocious position. That's like not caring that we dropped the Atom Bomb on Japan. I need to get my soul cleansed. My god; what was I thinking - I wasn't. Edwards 08 p.s. It was his Iraq War and Drug War positions that initially attracted me to him. by puffy66 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:47 AM PST o meh (3+ / 0-)
i think it's beneath kos to be perpetuating this myth, but i guess site traffic must have dropped off so he's gotta corral the party faithful. i have my reservations about some of rp's platform, and would be saddened if he actually said this stuff, but i just don't believe that he's a bigot like his political opponents would have you believe...it doesn't make sense in the context of his campaign; anyway, i don't remember david duke ever disavowing racist comments when he ran for president, and with how committed rp is to his other positions, i can't imagine he'd cover one up in order to sneak into office. if he would, why not misrepresent them all like bush did? i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:37 AM PST [ Parent ] § (2+ / 0-)
by james risser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:36:47 AM PST [ Parent ] § thanks for posting this, james risser (0 / 0) it's going right into my Ron Paul Hates You file. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:46:55 AM PST [ Parent ] · Curious How Chris Wallace Forgot to Ask About (4+ / 0-)
...the report on his interview last week. Paul is correct about one thing. The American public at large has been brainwashed by the MSM into believing that all black men, except for celebrities such as actors and athletes, are thugs. If anything, this fear has been magnified by the MSM since 1992, because as we all know, there's money and political power to be had in fear. This fear is germinated from decisions made to bring slaves to America 400 years ago, and we still haven't gotten over it. Chances are, unfortunately we won't anytime soon, but I'm more hopeful of this generation, the first to be raised on the Internet, than the last several, who was raised on TV and whose icons include Beavis, Butthead and Hulk Hogan. (Curious how my 78-yo father blames TV, and singles out Fox News and Entertainment in particular, for what he sees as the Decline of American Society-and he generally votes Republican). I linked to the 2004 movie CSAin a post a couple of days ago. Director Kevin Wilmott's discussion of society post-Civil War is fascinating and probably correct. Submitted for your consideration: "In many ways, the South did win The Civil War. Maybe not on the battlefield, but they won the peace. They won the fight for their way of life. The North changed, not the South. One of the best examples is the city in which I live, Lawrence, Kansas, famously founded by abolitionists. Following the North's "victory," the city was segregated. Kansas University, where I am an Assistant Professor, was segregated. The Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court decision that desegregated schools in the United States was in Kansas, not Mississippi. Maybe the history of the "C.S.A." would not be all that different from the one we have known - some differences, perhaps, but not a complete counter history. " by Vinnie Vegas on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:41:21 AM PST o Agreed (0 / 0) That MSM has brainwashed the public into thinking such things, and also that our history of slavery is what has made trust amongst the races so difficult in the U.S. by Montague on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:56:44 AM PST [ Parent ] · Would SOMEONE email this story to... (1+ / 0-)
Samm Simpson who is the only democratic challenger in FL-10? She's stated she'll be switching party affiliations to vote for this guy on January 29th... UGH! Boycotting CNN: biased news networks are bad for America, period. by jpfdeuce on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:41:46 AM PST · Can These Quotes Possibly Be Accurate? (0 / 0) This is sickening. I'm surprised Paul is promising to end the war immediately. After all, a substantial percentage of troops being killed in Iraq are black. Seems that would fit his outlook. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:44:44 AM PST o Not true, more white soldiers being killed (2+ / 0-)
As of Oct 2007, 2865 white soldiers, 413 Hispanic, 362 Black, 72 Asian, 82 "Other", and 46 "unknown" have died. If he is trying to "save" white lives, then the high rate of white deaths might be why he wants to pull out of Iraq. (but any guess why he wants to pull out of Korea, Japan, Germany, etc? Or is that because of the UN ties?) I don't know where you get the idea that blacks are the majority of casualties. Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes. by DrillSgtK on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:29 AM PST [ Parent ] § I Did Not Say "More Blacks" (1+ / 0-)
I said "a substantial percentage". Since that percentage is roughly near the percentage of blacks in the total population I withdraw the point. by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:08:10 PM PST [ Parent ] · Shouldn't he make ALL of the newsletters public? (1+ / 0-)
Seriously, we ask that
candidates tell us so much else. This isn't prying into his private papers, it
is about his (semi-) public writing. by nytcek on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:52:46 AM PST o if it's a "newsletter" (1+ / 0-)
can't you track down a copy? i mean, we're not talking about the man's private journals. c'mon! i fail to see how fox news is not affected by the writers' strike... by mediaprisoner on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:04 AM PST [ Parent ] § small circulation newsletter (5+ / 0-)
of which only scattered copies have surfaced. Why won't Paul release his published work that went out under his name? Paul has not said he doesn't have them. Only that he won't release them. Paul can't stand behind his published work? Seems to me like his published work can't stand the light of day. FrederickClarkson.com and TalktoAction.org by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:10 AM PST [ Parent ] § Smoking gun? (1+ / 0-)
The University of Wisconsin, Madison owns microfilm copies of The Ron Paul Survival Report (call #: Micro film P07-614) and The Ron Paul Political Report (Micro film P07-613). Both reels are checked out (due 2/6/08), which is curious because items in historical documents collections typically don't circulate. by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:01:23 PM PST [ Parent ] § 2/6/08 (1+ / 0-)
Very convenient. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:06 PM PST [ Parent ] o absolutely. Paul Cover-up of extremism (0 / 0) or at least we can fairly assume that where there are racist comments to disavow only when called on it -- there is much more to disavow as well. Ron Paul is a coward. Probably a liar. Most likely a racist -- as well as being an antiabortion, antigay, and antigovernment zealot. In anycase, he is certainly a man with much to hide. FrederickClarkson.com and TalktoAction.org by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:05 AM PST [ Parent ] · BULL FECES! (5+ / 0-)
The N.Y. Times said such comments were out of character for Paul. He didn't write it, and it's only surfacing now because he's become a serious contender. Some Kossacks are so damn quick to call someone a racist and hate-monger. It really hurts the credibility of an otherwise respectable political site. "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok" by methylin on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:53:20 AM PST o Ron Paul has many, many things that would.... (1+ / 0-)
....lead one to believe he is at least shockingly insensitive to racial issues. Look at his voting record on Civil Rights and Social Programs that help the poor, for example. by Trial Lawyer Richard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:42 AM PST [ Parent ] o Wrong. (4+ / 0-)
Christopher Caldwell, a right-wing writer, wrote in the New York Times Magazine that "the style diverges widely from [Paul]'s own," an assertion with which I disagree strongly. Articles in the NYT's Sunday magazine should not be taken as speaking for the paper, and you are disingenuous to suggest that they do. May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him. by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:56:35 PM PST [ Parent ] · Any liberal or progressive posting supportive (2+ / 0-)
comments with respect to Paul is either a liar or is wishfully delusional. We didn't crash the gates. The gates saw us coming and they crashed themselves. by Delaware Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:58:39 AM PST o I'm glad I don't do that then. (0 / 0) I just give him money. lol "Ripeness is all." Shakespeare by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:08:27 AM PST [ Parent ] o I could say the same about Hillary... (2+ / 0-)
...not that I do, but it's certainly a defensible position. (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian by Sparhawk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:20:04 PM PST [ Parent ] · i'm sure some havent seen this yet (0 / 0) but honestly i'm very surprised it took this long for this to make the front page. scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92 by el zilcho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:50 AM PST · Glenn Greenwald, in his defense of Ron Paul's (4+ / 0-)
campaign against attacks (almost entirely coming from the right) does not even think the racism charge is worth mentioning. Championing mainstream political thought while pretending to oppose it: I really wish it were the case that other viable presidential campaigns besides Ron Paul's (and Dennis Kucinich's, if one wants to count him) were making substantive critiques of America's imperialism and fundamental departures from our constitutional framework. But they just aren't. I wish it were the case that other candidates besides Ron Paul were injecting into our political discourse vital questions of America's role in the world that are otherwise ignored completely. But they aren't. I wish it were the case that the mainstream, pro-choice liberal candidates to whom Klein is so attached cared more about these issues or were brave enough to challenge the orthodoxies which shape them. But they aren't. Thus, those who think it's vital that those issues be addressed don't really have any viable presidential campaigns to highlight other than Ron Paul's (or, to a much more limited degree, Chris Dodd). Pro-choice individuals who welcome to our political debates those contributions from Ron Paul are no more guilty of "selling abortion rights down the river" than Ezra Klein and Shakespeare's Sister are guilty of selling the lives of Muslims and our constitutional framework down the river by virtue of their support for good, mainstream Democratic candidates who are bad or horrible on those issues. The kind of acceptable mainstream dialogue that Chris Matthews and Joe Klein think are legitimate and are willing to air simply excludes many -- one should probably say most -- of the most pressing matters that need to be aired. Unfortunately, in order for those issues to be addressed, one has to go outside of the MSNBC and Time Magazine framework and outside of mainstream Democratic Party policy, often by seeking out political factions that are deeply imperfect in other respects. Those who want to confine themselves to Chris Matthews' realm are free to do so, but really shouldn't feel superior as a result or try to smear those who don't with the sort of tactics Klein uses. The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. by lysias on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:36 AM PST · His appeal is not just racist (4+ / 0-)
Granted, a part of Ron Paul's appeal is racist in nature, but the forest of hand-lettered Paul signs across rural America is about more than old fashioned KKK- style racism. The rural and small-town white working class is in trouble and has been for decades. And they don't know who to blame for the shuttered factories and their dead-end jobs at the 7-11 or in the nursing home. Or for the war they were suckered into playing such a large part in. And why don't they know who to blame? They don't know because the current crop of Democrats don't like to "play the blame game" or "engage in class warfare." Why should they? They all have just about as money as the Repubs. And the few unions active in these areas do little more than take the dues straight out of your check and forget you. So Ron Paul tells them "gov'mint" is to blame and it seems plausible to them. He says bring home every soldier and close every base outside the US and they say fine. But I don't think the kind of rural and small-town white folks who like Ron Paul are really all that racist. The towns throughout the Northeast that I know best are nowhere near as monoracial as they once were. Working people of all races tend to be thrown together in the dying rust-belt towns and small cities, and although there's friction there's also friendship, shared business ventures and intermarriage. Don't get me wrong. Paul is dangerous. And the kind of anger he stirs up could easily turn anti-Semitic or anti-Asian. But I think it's a mistake to think of Ron Paulism as the same old kind of racism. It's a new kind. by Valatius on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:08:52 AM PST o I remember "Sundowner" towns (1+ / 0-)
and they are not in our distant history but our recent one; if racism is less overt, then it is because there are fewer minorities about to blame for the problems. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:01 AM PST [ Parent ] · I'm curious about the data cited in the "Report." (1+ / 0-)
Where did it come from? Who conducted the study? If only "5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," how did we find this out? I looked through the links, but couldn't find any sources. VetVoice: The blog for troops and veterans | My book on Amazon by Brandon Friedman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:29 AM PST o I guess it is like the Learning Curve (0 / 0) and other IQ related books of that ilk from some years ago; the problem is when researchers are not able to operationalize their variables and think race is still a valid anthropological term. "Racism is a pigment of the imagination" by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:32:41 AM PST [ Parent ] § Correction: Bell Curve (0 / 0) Sorry, I got it and the Bell Jar tangled in my mind. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:56:43 AM PST [ Parent ] § Bell Jar: A great book. n/t (0 / 0) VetVoice: The blog for troops and veterans | My book on Amazon by Brandon Friedman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:59:21 AM PST [ Parent ] · to you fucking ron paul idiots... (2+ / 0-)
...who are barking and yelping below about the new york times article, who only have read fucking wiki! you cretinous yobs, you repulsive fucking racist-enabling deviants ought to still be not so fucking stupid as to believe wiki as the source of truth without checking it out first. the ron paul wiki was written by your co-deviants from their basement hovels, and although you might find that 'good enough', the people who still walk on two feet and do not have snot running from our noses know better. here is the new york times section, have your mothers read it to you: The
question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom
or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Paul's Democratic
opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes
from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington.
Passages described the black male population of Washington as ''semi-criminal
or entirely criminal'' and stated that ''by far the most powerful lobby in
Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.'' Morris noted that a
Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul's newsletter as a laudably
''racialist'' publication. now, gather around y0ou sick fucking degenerates. THE WORD "BUT" QUALIFIES THE SECTION YOU SICK BASTARDS HANG ON!!! how dare you fucking idiots take the new york times out of context and claim that they support the fucking knuckle-dragging deviant ron paul and his racist remark! NO ONE DOES, but, for the loud, obnoxious, lazy fucking deviants and racists and nazis that support this shit-stain ron paul! may you all fuck yourselves and find another site to soil with your nonsense. by james risser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:52 AM PST o further... (1+ / 0-)
...the writer of this piece is a fucking republican who is now a senior editor of the weekly standard, and a columnist at the financial times... this is hardly a 'typical' new york times writer, and the fact that the paul deviants are attempting to use the gravitas of the new york times on this site, is yet another in a long line of errors made by these fucking people. by james risser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:23:58 AM PST [ Parent ] o Glen Greenwald: (0 / 0) But Ron Paul's candidacy is valuable -- irreplaceably so -- because, other than Kucinich's shell of a presidential campaign, he is the only one raising critical issues that would otherwise be ignored. Hmmmm... by wobbledon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:16:24 PM PST [ Parent ] · Besides the War on Drugs (3+ / 0-)
is there any single governmental policy that does more to damage minority communities in the US? I'm thinking of those various studies that show that even though blacks use drugs to the same degree (or even lesser with some drugs) as whites and asians, black users form the largest part by far of those jailed for drugs. And wasn't it something like 1 in 3 black males are part of the prison system, with most of them there because of the War on Drugs? So, is the War on Drugs fundamentally a device to enforce a racist agenda? Should Democrats be for or against it? Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do. by Jim P on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:38 AM PST o war on drugs (0 / 0) Did you seriously write "Is there any single governmental policy that does more to damage minority communities in the US"? I agree that the prison terms should be normalized between cocaine and crack but that is not the problem. If the blacks want to stay out of jail then they should avoid using illegal substances, just like whites and others. It is pretty simple-obey the law and you will avoid incarceration. At what point are the minority communities going to be held accountable for their choices and actions? If you want a govt policy that is terrible for minorities then look no further than affirmative action; I can't imagine being a young black female and being told that I need special help to compete with the white males. Talk about being made to feel inferior. It might be enough to make one despair. Let's all work together for that society that MLK dreamed about- where people are judged by their merits and not by the color of their skin. by CVN65 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:44:24 AM PST [ Parent ] § In theory, yes (1+ / 0-)
Yes, African Americans should stay away from illegal drugs. But cops are less likely to target whites in drug persecutions and whites can afford better lawyers. by Utahrd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:13:45 PM PST [ Parent ] § Guess you didn't read the post. (3+ / 0-)
Or having read it, didn't comprehend it. The facts show African-American community uses drugs to the same, or even lesser degree (depends on the drug) than white or asians. How do you account for the fact that blacks, nonetheless, are jailed at several times the rate of whites and asians for the very same practices apart from selective application of the drug laws? Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do. by Jim P on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:31:44 PM PST [ Parent ] o Torn on this (0 / 0) On the one hand, it is ridiculous how many people are imprisoned for possession of drugs. I have no interest in what adults do in their recreational time, and no moral outrage about drug use, per se. I do think there is a shocking disparity in incarceration for drug offenses, which seems to reflect racial bias. However, I have known some addicts. They are incredibly destructive and dangerous, and there is no avoiding the fact that an addict will do anything, including commit any crime, to score his/her next hit. Moreover, having done a lot of pro bono work with death penalty groups working to overturn death penalty convictions, drug use is a huge factor in most violent crimes. People on drugs are more dangerous to the rest of us, both because they will harm us to get enough money to feed their addiction, and because their drug use erases their inhibitions and social rules. So, what is the answer? Is it mandatory rehab? Something does have to be done to protect the rest of us from dangerous drug addicts. I'd easily omit pot from that category, and think it's criminally absurd to incarcerate for possession or even dealing pot, but with cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, etc., you've got serious drugs with very dangerous addicts. Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM PST [ Parent ] § Nonetheless, why is it (1+ / 0-)
that white and asian users of coke, heroin, meth, etc do not go to jail with the frequency or the numbers as blacks at the same rate? Also, IIRC, it looks pretty clear that these addictive drugs do not lead to violence and crime in Holland. Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do. by Jim P on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM PST [ Parent ] o Amateur racists (0 / 0) We hated white South Africans during Apartheid because they came out and said, "Fuck you. We're racists. Deal with it." They didn't know how to disguise their racism like we sophisticates in the US. But who were the real racists in that area of the world? White South Africans who hired blacks, albeit at low wages in poor working conditions? Or someone like Mugabe who is starving his own citizens to death? So who's the real racist? Ron Paul who says "Blacks are criminals" but who wants to reform the laws that have sent more blacks to prison than anything else? Or congressmen and others who support laws that have decimated the African-American community? by Utahrd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:29 PM PST [ Parent ] § Nice inversion there (4+ / 0-)
On other blogs, the
same arguments, albeit in different sheepskins are made about Jesse Jackson and
Al Sharpton. Consider this, Idi Amin was a homicidal dictator who was not
racist because he killed people regardless of race. The South African
government based its whole system of governance on nothing but race, to the
absurd extent that Whites returning from vacation tanned and refreshed found
themselves reclassified as colored until the tan faded. If you traveled in
South Africa during Apartheid, you would have found an almost insane interest
in proving what color you were and not bypassing the social safeguards to
protect from miscegenation. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:37:51 PM PST [ Parent ] o Yes, there is worse (0 / 0) Health Care and Education policy and even lack of housing are at least as bad as the prohibition. My last sig was forced into retirement. The position is open. by MakeChessNotWar on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:28:10 PM PST [ Parent ] · Racism (0 / 0) Mr. Paul has some different ideas but, overall, is the only candidate advocating a move back to the country envisioned by our Founding Fathers. He is not necessarily against the Iraq War but is more generally against the use of our military as the world police. He would return us to the Federal govt authorized by the Constitution. The days of the Fed taking our money, then "giving" it back to us (strings attached ad infinitum) would be over. I don't know if the man has racist leanings but the material posted here is just a politician doing the unthinkable- reporting the cold, hard truth about an "oppressed" people. It seems most people want to be lied to, knowing that they are being lied to, with a wink and a smile a la Bubba Clinton. Does anyone out there have any factual evidence to contradict the quotes attributed to Mr. Paul? They are 15 years old but I'll wager that they are still quite correct. by CVN65 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:24:02 AM PST · It's not only the neo-Nazis (0 / 0) flocking to Paul's campaign. It is people who comment and diary here on DKos. In fact, I believe I saw a diary just last week on why so-and-so supports Ron Paul. I did not bother to read it, but I have read some comments which tell me the people who made them have done little or no research on this guy's background. Yep, he is against the Iraq War. So am I. He is also against an awful lot of things that we progressives are for. The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ. by oibme on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:24:10 AM PST o someday we'll look back on this 140K troll surge (0 / 0) and it will all seem funny. "remember those Ron Paul supporters who came to dK back around u#140,000 and spammed all kinds of threads claiming Ron Paul was a reasonable candidate?" "Yeah, they were all over the place." "They were swarming around like gnats flying in everyone's nose and hair until the truth about Ron Paul got out and their movement collapsed." "Good thing they're gone now..." Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:53:32 AM PST [ Parent ] · The Only Reason To "Support" Paul Is... (0 / 0) That it really annoys Republicans! It's beautiful, sure, if he made it to the general we've got stuff like this to sink his ship with. But his opponents can't because that would alienate too much of their base. So instead a well funded Paul gets to keep bashing his opponents over the head with their war support while really getting nowhere. He'll obviously lose the nomination and even if he goes Libertarian he'll bleed Republican support. Really think any liberals will jump ship? Just because he's anti war? Not a chance. Our nominee should be every bit as good as him on the war by then, and Paul would be more conservative than the Republican nominee. Government doesn't work so it shouldn't exist...that's a REAL conservative! I'd sure enjoy a Libertarian Paul in the low 20's, a Republican whoever in the low 20's, and our guy/gal in the high 50's. Otherwise, obviously Paul is a racist freak. But he's the black sheep of the family, so I'm enjoying watching him crap on their lawn. The more he reaffirms their support of Mr. 20%, the better off we are in the long run. by wheelimus on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:24:24 AM PST o lol (0 / 0) "Our nominee should be every bit as good as him on the war by then..." "Ripeness is all." Shakespeare by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:58 AM PST [ Parent ] § Heh, yeah (2+ / 0-)
I'm trying to leave a little wiggle room that the nominee could be "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" Hillary, but she would have had one of her changes of heart by then. So long as the polls stay in the same direction... by wheelimus on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:04:01 PM PST [ Parent ] · Fear of Blacks (0 / 0) It is true we have been taught since childhood be be suspicious of Blacks but the numbers attributed to Paul are ridiculous. In my community the probability that a Black will be arrested and booked into jail is about 15% to 25% the probability they will be sent to prison if booked is about 4% and the probability the most serious crime they are sent to prison for is a violent crime is about 45%. This means that the probability a Black from our community will be sentenced to prison for a violent crime is less than 1% not 90%. I agree that all of these probabilities are too high but I think they are based on valid data (other than the census data which I think undercounted Blacks). by disgruntledem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:48 AM PST o The common joke around here (0 / 0) for an African American getting ready to take a trip on the interstate driving a Lexus or Beemer or whatever luxury ride is to be prepared to be stopped by a cop for DWB. by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:34:14 AM PST [ Parent ] § This doesn't seem to apply to women, btw (1+ / 0-)
My wife is an African American professional (research chemist) who drives a Lexus, but she never gets pulled over for no reason. The only time she got pulled over was when she was doing 80 in a 55 zone (that car has too much power, and she has a lead foot :). I suspect the problem pertains mostly to young African American males. by lexmark4321 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:23:25 PM PST [ Parent ] · (6+ / 0-)
by james risser on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:30:20 AM PST o Thank You! (1+ / 0-)
How this thread became about the various Dem primary candidates is beyond me. Thanks for bringing it back to Ron Paul, the racist nutjob! Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:19:33 PM PST [ Parent ] · Preparing for a Paul - Obama matchup? (0 / 0) So this is a taste of what we're in for when Paul and Obama win their respective party nominations. by Housesitter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:45:25 AM PST o Well, then, we aren't likely to have (1+ / 0-)
to hurry to perfect the rhetoric, since I'll wager quite a substantial sum of money that we won't be seeing that particular electoral matchup oh, within my lifetime. Michael by musing85 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:16:38 PM PST [ Parent ] o Obama vs Paul would be great for America (0 / 0) Either way, we'd keep the warmongers (Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc) out of office! by lexmark4321 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:08:38 PM PST [ Parent ] · The real overt racist is Romney (2+ / 0-)
I think Romney's racism is slightly more overt than Paul's. After all Romney is a Mormon and they didn't believe blacks should be in any positions of leadership in their organization until just recently. Slavery has been over for 142 years and they are just now waking up to this? Now that's racist. Having said that, yes, Paul is a racist too for those comments. People need to remember that Paul is a conservative and far to the right of many on everything except the war. The Republican party itself is racist. If it wasn't there would be more blacks in it. That is the attraction of it to so many whites. It lies and says it's the party of Christian conservative values, etc. Bullshit. They are the party of rank corporatism, pedophiles, hypocrisy, sexism and bigotry. They do not deserve a voice in modern politics but they speak to a naive, fearful segment of the American white populace. Republicans support measures that hurt their own base and then blame someone else, usually nonwhites, terrorism or atheists, for the problem. The problem is lying ass Republicans and Democrats bought by corporations but whites will never wake up. by nfamous on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:07 AM PST · All I hear (1+ / 0-)
is how Ron Paul is all about the Constitution and so why is that a bad thing? Well, Ron Paul is a phenomenon simply because he has managed to come across as "genuine." I would trust him to deliver my baby (as so many women in his district did) but I worry that his "ideas" are unrealistic and his core beliefs are racist. Here in Texas, I've grown up knowing men like Dr. Paul. Salt of the earth people. But (and this is a BIG but) they really don't believe we are all created equal. "I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94) by suswa on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:31 AM PST · "Overt" is the key word (0 / 0) Thats why "All in the Family" was such a popular TV show. It was good for America. I think Paul's internet community is focused on limiting the Federal Government and bringing power back to the State and local governments. by brown4160 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:55:20 AM PST · This explains why the Ronnettes- Ron Paul Drones (2+ / 0-)
react the way they do when you disagree with them. The Ron Paulogists have this kind of leadership I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. So if you don't agree 100% with them and their world view you are a crazy or entirely a criminal. And they put on blinder to how bonkers they sound and how racist he is. Really I'm quite tired of arguing with the Ron Paulettes. by Clytemnestra on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:26 PM PST · Lie. Rinse. Repeat. (6+ / 4-)
You guys learned from Rove
and the Bushies well... Beer. Gimme some. by ElJames on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:39:19 PM PST o Excuse racism. Rinse. Repeat. (1+ / 0-)
Yes. Stop listening to your preachers. Go over to DavidDuke.com at make up your own mind about Ron Paul. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:59:08 PM PST [ Parent ] o Yea (0 / 0) He's all better now. Notice how he is returning all that Racist money....not. by randallt on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:09:19 PM PST [ Parent ] · Paul @ the PBS African Americans debate (1+ / 0-)
Anybody happen to catch Paul's performance in the PBS debate hosted by Tavis Smiley, focusing on issues important to African Americans and other minorities? This might help shore up his place as the GOP's overt racist candidate. by Housesitter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:40:35 PM PST o I really don't see (0 / 0) how the clips you embedded even remotely support your thesis. What am I missing? by chrismatthews on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:34:04 PM PST [ Parent ] § his sarcasim (0 / 0) by Clytemnestra on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:35:28 PM PST [ Parent ] o wow he has no contact with the human condition (0 / 0) he thinks like Tony Snow . . . just because we don't want to address racism means it doesn't exist. . . right There is just so much wrong in his answers I think I'd like to sleep tonight and not get all worked up responding to them by Clytemnestra on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:41:55 PM PST [ Parent ] o to back up what I said (1+ / 0-)
Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote. Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted forthe bogus Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill. But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America: you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know. (Apparently, saying that [i]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for free-market economics.) The more you read about
Ron Paul's record the more you see that all his talk on the campaign trail is
just crap by Clytemnestra on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:53:29 PM PST [ Parent ] · Fail! (5+ / 3-)
This is what classifies as "overt"? Falsely attributed, 15year old quote, with no corroborating evidence? "Overt" racism? No sale. by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM PST · As Klan members we have had (1+ / 0-)
a Supreme Court Justice and a Senator (Democrat). Parties in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. by lanceman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:12:29 PM PST · Did Ron Paul pen those words... (1+ / 0-)
or was it in a report that someone else penned with Ron Paul's name on it? Help's clarify things a little. In politics repugs >>> dems are known for their propensity to make generalized statements. I'm interested in the specifics. May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html by FLS on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:17:24 PM PST o Article writer (1+ / 0-)
This issue was first raised by one of Ron Paul's opponents in a Republican Primary - Ron Paul was running against a guy backed by George W. Bush and Karl Rove. The piece was written by a staffer, who Ron Paul fired. He apologized for not taking an active role in editing the newsletter. Old news here in Texas, but I guess its getting dredged up nationally now that Ron Paul's poll numbers are up and his fundraising is way up. Off topic: We need a President that will have the sense and the courage to oppose those who push for STUPID WARS- Hillary was lacking one or the other! by lexmark4321 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:05:45 PM PST [ Parent ] § what's interesting is (0 / 0) why has kos has fallen for this smear? None are more
hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Goethe by Dr Seuss on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:52:48 PM PST [ Parent ] § Because its not a smear (1+ / 0-)
Four years after the comments were made, Paul defended the comments saying that they were based on research available at the time. He didn't mention that it was reserach conducted by a white supremicist group. It was nine years later, in 2001, that Paul came up with the excuse that the staffer wrote it without his permission. The correct question is not why Kos has "fallen" for the "smear" but why anyone actually believes Ron Paul. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:18:01 PM PST [ Parent ] § wrong (0 / 0) § racist statements made in Ron Paul Newsletter 1996. When asked about statements, Paul said he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." The statistical reports to which he was referring were by a white supremicist group. 2001. Paul comes up with the story that a staffer wrote the racist statements without his permission. 2007. Some people actually still dumb enough to believe Ron Paul is no a racist. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:58:00 PM PST [ Parent ] · No need to go back to 1992 (4+ / 0-)
Three days ago, Paul told Tim Russert the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong because private property owners should have the right to discriminate on their own property. And yet some people claim that Paul hasn't said anything racist since 1992. The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:19:56 PM PST o Ron's explanation (4+ / 0-)
Here is Dr. Paul's
explanation, from the Congressional Record. A couple money quotes: "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society." "America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act." In short he believes that freedoms apply to all people, even if they are racist bigots, and that society effects its own evolution better on its own rather than by government force. I find nothing to disagree with there. by abplayer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:30:19 PM PST [ Parent ] § One more thing (3+ / 0-)
And let me add that if you were trying to imply that RP called blacks "property," I give up on even talking to you. In that case clearly you're lying just to prejudice others, so rational discussion would be useless. by abplayer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:32:44 PM PST [ Parent ] § He did call blacks property (3+ / 0-)
Not in the discussion of the CRA, but in the discussion of the Civil War. He said that southerners should have been compensated for emancipated slaves. Compensation implies that something was taken away from them; i.e., property rights. You're right to abandon the debate. Tirde of trying to defend the indefensible? The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:57:57 PM PST [ Parent ] § They were, weren't they? (4+ / 1-)
Whether or not this was right, many felt that they were property, and acted accordingly. This is merely a description of the way things were, to try to infer any more from it than that seems... dumb. They should not have been property, it was wrong for them to have been, but saying that this is so doesn't change history. by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:53:02 PM PST [ Parent ] § Sophist nonsense (4+ / 0-)
that betrays an underlying racism. He's professing concern for the rights of the restaurant owner who can no longer discriminate on the basis of race, even though the decision affects the operation of a private establishment and other patrons are free to make choices based on the owner's decision to discriminate. What about the right of the consumer to eat at a restaurant and not be denied the ability to (a) eat a meal, (b) network with colleagues and potential clients, (c) not have to travel miles from the interstate (socialized transportation!), simply because of the color of her skin? What about Coca-Cola's desire to serve product to as many people as possible, regardless of color or nationality? The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans. by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:04:21 PM PST [ Parent ] · Paul's Policies Likely To Kill Fewer Than HRC's (3+ / 0-)
I am a Democrat who does not on a cold day in hell support Ron Paul. Among other things, "Mr. Constitution" shows his true colors by refusing to stand up to Bush/Cheney and demand impeachment as warranted under the Constitution. But is rational discussion still possible about this guy? When you compare a foreign policy that is non-interventionist and anti-imperial (in other words, basically like the rest of the world's nations') versus one that is global imperial and geopolitically power driven, the reality is that more people in other countries will likely end up on the wrong end of a depleted uranium US bomb (made in USA, with weapons and bombs being one of the few things we still manufacture here in America) under an HRC administration. But could it be that a Paul Administration could succeed on the issues he's right about, while completely fail on the rest of his BS platform? An argument could be made that a Paul Administration could create a powerful, strategic reversal of corporate militarism on the international front, given the wide powers of the Presidency in the area of foreign affairs. And for the welfare of American citizens, this would be an accomplishment of unprecedented positive impact. And that may not matter to some of us, safely behind our keyboards, and not minding that runaway military spending and empire building has bankrupted the country, but it does matter a whole lot to people living in a village in Iran or Venezuela. Conversely, a Paul Presidency would be paralyzed completely on a domestic agenda by Congress, and Paul would never be able to pass into law things like Stormfront racism, laissez faire capitalism (oh wait, we basically already have that), and other things he supposedly stands for. Uh, then again, with the Democratic Congressional "leadership" we have, maybe assuming they'd have the backbone to stand up to a President Paul isn't a good idea after all. "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:35:47 PM PST · Paul thinks the 1965 Voting rights act is (6+ / 0-)
unconstitutional. In
2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the
1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting
participation for minorities. He has also been criticized for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. And he
advocates withdrawal from the UN and NATO. He
believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor
mandated at the federal or state level. by immigradvocate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:48:36 PM PST o Ron Paul Wikipedia link for his positions. (1+ / 0-)
Better Wikipedia link for my previous post. by immigradvocate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:55:35 PM PST [ Parent ] o Ron's explanation (0 / 0) Here is Dr. Paul's
explanation, from the Congressional Record. A couple money quotes: "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society." "America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act." In short he believes that freedoms apply to all people, even if they are racist bigots, and that society effects its own evolution better on its own rather than by government force. I find nothing to disagree with there. by abplayer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:35:39 AM PST [ Parent ] · the "Sensible opinions" meme is an old one... (0 / 0) for decades the right has basically said that African Americans really should not have the right to vote because most of them do not subscribe to politically correct (right wing) views. it's an old chestnut they've used for ages. Goes along with the "tisk tisk they vote for Democrats and are dumb because Democrats suck" meme they pump out every 4 years. really nasty stuff, actually. by schadelmannII on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:14:20 PM PST · Reposted because I think it's relevant (5+ / 0-)
I understand what drives the Paul campaign and why some liberals are interested in it. The very fact that his candidacy is interesting to so many should be a red blazing warning sign to the Democratic party, and it's tied in with the themes that Kos talks about constantly: Dem capitulation, disregard for the rule of law, coziness with corporations, etc etc. Ignoring Paul's somewhat kookier ideas, his campaign is pretty much about rectifying those things, and his 'soft' support here and why DKos has a "Ron Paul troll" problem is tied up with the fact that no one sees a Dem candidate that's not compromised with respect to these issues. Again, if we had Gore,
Feingold, or Dean running, or if Hillary/Obama/Edwards didn't seem so
compromised, weak, and Repub-lite, Paul would be merely a curiosity here. As it
is, the Paul candidacy says one thing: DANGER, DANGER! But people here would
rather throw around troll-rates and accusations of racism from questionable
stuff that happened Again, the Ron Paul phenomenon should be announcing one thing to Dem politicians (and the Kos community): DANGER, DANGER! (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian by Sparhawk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:26:36 PM PST o Yeah but ... (0 / 0) Ron Paul is not going to get elected. I see no danger here. He's like Perot and Dean on acid. Not gonna happen. Get out of control, but
appear under control. It's not bad to alarm other people, though - it's good
for them. by bisenbek on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:43:39 PM PST [ Parent ] § Not elected -- not the point (3+ / 0-)
With his supporters able to raise $6M in a day (with the average donation $100 so they can do it multiple times) they will convince him to run third party or simply mount a write-in campaign. RP is attracting huge numbers of supporters who mainly/only look at his anti-war stance. As noted upstream, a third party RP could take significant votes from a Dem candidate who supported the war. I saw maps of MeetUps -- the Paul map was exploding. Really crazy stuff going on here. I would be more upset if I weren't so sedated... by Paolo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:55:43 PM PST [ Parent ] · Ron Paul a Racist? You've got to be kidding... (7+ / 0-)
I don't comment often, but I couldn't let this pass. My wife and I are a mixed race couple in San Antonio. We love Ron Paul's vehement anti-war stance (lets face it, he is stronger on ending the war than any Democrat other than Kucinich) so we attended a rally last summer to hear him speak (we also attended Obama's fundraiser here for the same reason). After his speech, Ron Paul CAME UP TO US and shook our hands and spoke to us- and no, its not because there were cameras around- no one was covering his campaign at the time. Nice guy, talked to us for a couple of minutes- just chatted about nothing (he liked my wife's anti-war Tshirt). He did the same with lots of other minority folks (including hispanics and asians, San Antonio is a very culturally diverse city). Would a "white racist" do this when there were plenty of white folks he could have been talking to? I'll probably get banned for disagreeing with the web site founder, but I couldn't let this smear pass. BTW, in the primaries, we're voting for either Ron Paul or Barack Obama, depending on who we think has the best chance of getting the nomination as we have an open primary here- we won't be voting for a pro-war candidate (insert name of Republican other than Ron Paul here) offer no hope of ending the insane Iraq war. by lexmark4321 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:53:24 PM PST o I'm not illiterate, really... (2+ / 0-)
Okay, that last paragraph was messed up- I shouldn't post while talking on the phone :). What I meant to say was: "BTW, in the primaries, we're voting for either Ron Paul or Barack Obama, depending on who we think has the best chance of getting the nomination as we have an open primary here- we won't be voting for a pro-war candidate Hillary or(insert name of Republican other than Ron Paul here) that offers no hope of ending the insane Iraq war." by lexmark4321 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:58:52 PM PST [ Parent ] · I was at the car dealer today (2+ / 0-)
standing there shivering in the service bay, feeling my credit card groan in misery, and who should drive in but a guy in a Honda Odyssey with a big magnetic sign: "RON PAUL 2008. Restore the Republic." I really wanted to go up to him and say "Yeah, maybe the Roman Republic. You know the one that had slaves." My choices: 1. Obama. 1. Edwards. ... 9,999,999. Hillary. by blue vertigo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:54:16 PM PST o I believe Rome's policy was military expansion (1+ / 0-)
as opposed to contraction. At least be historically consistent. Sorry folks. It's not politics as usual. by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:15:31 PM PST [ Parent ] · Yeah Ron Paul's racist (0 / 0) as opposed to the democratic presidential field who want to continue indiscriminately killing and arresting Iraqis and also want to continue the practice of sending generation after generation of black males to prison. Nope, the only racist is the pro-freedom candidate. Okkk. Sorry suckers, enjoy the fightin' Dems! by szilard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:06:45 PM PST · Opposition is quick to smear Ron Paul as a racist (1+ / 0-)
The media has ignored Ron Paul's platform throughout this presidential campaign and has refused to give him and other candidates a fair proportion of air-time. Now that Ron Paul has shown himself to be a candidate that can make a difference in the presidential race, his platform still isn't being covered. Rather, the opposition is scrounging whatever tidbits (supported or not) so it can to smear Ron Paul. A week ago, the smear was about a racist contributing $500 to Paul's campaign and Paul said rightly that he is not returning the money because he'd rather not have the extremist using the money to promote his cause (does that sound like a racist statement?). Someone on the opposition really went to a lot of effort to find the $500 out of $27 million that Paul has raised in his campaign and the smear didn't work. Now this story comes out again (it isn't new and has been disclaimed by Paul) in an attempt to paint Ron Paul as racist, which I don't believe he is. The Democratic and Republican racists are the ones that are supporting a foreign policy that believes Americans can use military might to take the world's resources away from other people of the world, all in the name of fighting terrorism. by Independent 101 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:32:28 PM PST o Because (1+ / 0-)
He is a wacko. Get out of control, but
appear under control. It's not bad to alarm other people, though - it's good
for them. by bisenbek on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:56:06 PM PST [ Parent ] · You have to remember (2+ / 0-)
that the demographic Paul will appeal to is a powerful force. This is your young white male demographic, the ones that have always bought into the campaigns that gave them fodder for social comparisons wherein they were able to cast themselves as just slightly smarter, cleaner, faster and generally better than everyone else. This is the demographic you can rally with cowboy capitalism, "criminality" theories, and highly abstract theories about how "mine is mine and yours is yours, so what's the problem?" This is the arrogant young white male fantasy, and it is easy to get it burning politically. The right wing used it to trample us in the eighties and nineties. This is just Republicanism and market worship all over again, with some fine tuning to eliminate the currently unpopular war. It will lead right back to the same old structure represented by the Bush administration tout d'suite. It is an elitist, market worship theory that allows privileged young males with limited capacity for, or interest in, ethical reasoning to justify their privilege and allay guilt. If we haven't beaten these folks yet, then we may not -- but Paul is going to be their candidate (hyped as something "new and cool"). (-,-) "Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong. But that's a good working theory. " John Tierney by phaktor on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:47:00 PM PST o Won't happen (1+ / 0-)
due to him being a wacko. Get out of control, but
appear under control. It's not bad to alarm other people, though - it's good
for them. by bisenbek on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:56:34 PM PST [ Parent ] · Erasing my comments - predictable (1+ / 0-)
I had a comment here titled "swiftboating," in which I mentioned several important things, among them the fact that Ron Paul has said (to the Washington Post) that he'd like Walter Williams (a BLACK man) as his VP. The comment fairly well dismantled this whole discussion, and had only one comment (from DelRPCV) for over four hours, a rarity on Kos and especially in this heated thread. Now it's mysteriously gone. I'm happy to engage in lively debate, even when outnumbered in the echo chamber. But now ya gotta remove my most effective posts, too? When I make a point for which you don't have an effective response, the Interwebs just eat it? :-P Man, the primaries cannot come soon enough. by abplayer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM PST o I'll engage you Paulites (1+ / 0-)
I consider myself a far left independent, I'd be a Green if I had a consistent slate of candidates to vote for. I actually enjoy the discussions that Ron Paul inspires, and I won't try to shut you or him down by saying WACKO and leaving it at that. I live in Austin, and became interested in Ron Paul from hearing about him from Alex Jones' access show and seeing the vicious attack ads that the Republicans would run against him in the primaries. I LOVED the one where they tried to make him look crazy by showing UFO's and aliens and having a whole weekly world news look to the ad. That was so vicious, it was actually funny, all the more so because it utterly failed to bring him down. I am glad Ron Paul is in congress. I love the fact that his is a thorn in the side of the GOP. There are so few people in congress that have any clue what the constitution says or care that it is ignored on a daily basis by our government. I got on Ron Paul's mailing list in the early 90's and the racist comments quoted here are right in line with much of the rest of the type of stuff "his people" (i.e., "he") was putting out then. I got off of his list because it was chock full of standard scared white man stuff like the stuff about "Super Predator" black gangster children, Hillary's Socialized Communist health care, the U.N. invading, The left trying to take away our guns, and the whole litany of white-man panic button issues of the time. I understand why he did it, because it was working for him, and it is what his constituents wanted to hear. Depending on where the primaries lie by the time they get to Texas, I may even vote for Paul in the primaries (it's sick to think that I would have to register as a Republican, this may drive me to drink). I love the fact that Ron Paul is stirring up the shit, on both sides. He believe, like most white men his age, that his view of race is deeply prejudiced and is partially formed by the racist media. BTW, Robert Byrd is an ex Klan member and I agree with the Paulites here that his record is FAR worse on race that Paul's, but we are all willing to forgive Byrd because he stands up to Bush, has backed off of the overt racism, and he has a "D" after his name. I think we on the left would be a lot better off, and a lot happier, if we were willing to hear our opponents out, especially when they have something unusual to say, as Ron Paul does. I was banned from Crooks and Liars for making completely on-topic citations of The Trans-Texas Corridor highway, and was called a NAU conspiracy theorist and my messages expunged. I had assumed and hoped that Dailykos was more mature and robust than the Crooks and Liars folk, but I wonder now seeing that they are removing posts. by iburl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:54:54 PM PST [ Parent ] § you should know what a hidden comment is, 74049 (0 / 0) and Robert Byrd is not running for President. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:59:43 AM PST [ Parent ] o Its not gone (0 / 0) Its in hidden comments land. And its there because you are a moron and a troll. John Edwards for President by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:34:33 PM PST [ Parent ] o your comments are not erased (0 / 0) if you get enough negative feedback your comments are "hidden" from casual consumers of the site but "trusted users" can still see them. I can still see them. I'm glad they were hidden. This is a Democratic site. It is not appropriate to pump up Republican candidates here. Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:58:26 AM PST [ Parent ] · The placement of the missing comment (0 / 0) It was right in between "Did Ron Paul pen
those words... by FLS" I'm sure quite a few of you saw it, DelRPCV among them. by abplayer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:49:50 PM PST o Removed post (0 / 0) because you are a wacko. Get out of control, but
appear under control. It's not bad to alarm other people, though - it's good
for them. by bisenbek on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:57:02 PM PST [ Parent ] o Was tr'd: here's responses: (3+ / 0-)
Just this Sunday, he said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake because people should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race on their own property. Flat out racist. TRed
for pimping a Pub here. (3+ / 0-) Yeah,
sure: (2+ / 0-) Your two
comments got 5 tr's. by KenBee on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:56:32 PM PST [ Parent ] · Kos is an idiot! (0 / 0) If the 1992 report was why did it take so long for Kos to find? How can people flock to a banner if the information is missing? The 1992 report may show something wrong with Ron Paul (though he has repudiated it), but it cannot be the reason for anything if it is so obscure. by Arun on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:55:05 PM PST · The DailyKos supports Racist, I'll prove it (3+ / 0-)
Is it racist to support a war on an Islamic Nation and its people? Well, lets see who has. October 11, 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Senator Biden (D) - Yea
Representative Kucinich
(D) - Nay They also support Senator Barack Obama who has voted to fund this war on an Islamic Nation and its people. Dr. Paul wants to end the killing of these Muslims while the Democratic Candidates don't want to leave Iraq until atleast 2013. Who supports religious discrimination then, Paul or the Daily Kos. You people don't get it, your not Progressive, you hate just like the Republicans do, you just hide it better. by IraqWarVeteran on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:22:12 PM PST · Not a racist.. (1+ / 0-)
But definitely a wacko. And unelectable: (First debate) ANY DEM: Mr. Paul, I understand that you are in favor of dismantling Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, as well as the Cabinet level Departments of the United States government, such as Education and Agriculture. Is that correct? PAUL: Yes. done. I do enjoy the fireworks he has brought to the process, however. Good fun! by Diebold Hacker on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:45:38 PM PST · Ron Paul supportors: Justifying racism (0 / 0) I love reading the RP supporters on here. It is not just his past statements on HIS OWN newsletter - it is his current statements (including his recent interview with Tim Russert). Let's see: RP is against the 1964 civil rights act because private property owners should be allowed to discriminate. RP thinks that Lincoln started the civil war and it had nothing to do with slavery (Historically false). RP thinks that a better solution was to buy the slaves (Does he think that people in the South would actually sell them if they didn't want to?) No - RP is an idealogue that thinks thinks the free market will save everything. Just because he is against the war doesn't make him a hero. Plenty of candidates oppose the war and aren't certifiably looney. Edwards and Obama work just fine for me as anti-war candidates. No: RP can't rum from what he has said and supported and what he is saying now. Also, he internet support is much higher than his actual support. Now that people are actually getting to know who he is and what he stands for - only the true believers (or ignorers) will be left. by correctnotright on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:46:54 PM PST o Responses to your assertions (0 / 0) You raise several points: § 1964 civil rights legislation Here is Dr. Paul's
explanation, from the Congressional Record. A couple money quotes: "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society." "America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act." In short he believes that freedoms apply to all people, even if they are racist bigots, and that society effects its own evolution better on its own rather than by government force. I find nothing to disagree with there. § "RP thinks that Lincoln started the civil war and it had nothing to do with slavery" Can you provide a direct quote where he says this, or are you misrepresenting him? 3. "RP thinks that a better solution was to buy the slaves" That's how most of the rest of the world ended slavery. The American Civil War cost 600,000 lives. I don't think we can even fathom that kind of carnage. To be consistently anti-war and to say that what worked elsewhere might have worked here isn't crazy. by abplayer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:39:52 AM PST [ Parent ] · Ron Paul is Not a Racist (1+ / 0-)
Ron Paul is not a racist. The man doesn't have a racist bone in his body. I've been reading this blog for years and I am really disappointed in these attacks on Dr. Paul. As noted in his wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#1996_campaign_controversy), Dr. Paul did not make those racist comments that appeared in his newsletter. They were written by a staffer. He took "moral responsiblity" for them appearing in his newsletter, but even the "New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations 'quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.'" Nothing remotely like that ever appears in any of his other writings and there must be hundreds if not thousands of his speeches and essays online. Ron Paul believes all people should be treated as individuals regardless of membership in any group whether it's based on race, sex, or religion. This blog may of course have ideological differences with Dr. Paul. These are issues that should be discussed and debated. You should argue based on those ideological issues. Ad hominem attacks and name calling are not helpful in elevating the political dialog in this country. We all have a vested interest in that. Propagating clearly discredited lies is counter-productive. Even the NY Times retracted its recent errors on this subject (http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/). by jdp23 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:16 PM PST · Is it just me... (1+ / 0-)
...or does Ron Paul elicit a firestorm of comments. I'm happy to see that he is forcing people to think (even, just a little). A healthy debate is good for politics and is needed very badly today. The Status Quo has sold you and I out! The Status Quo is unacceptable. by SdcZen on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:50 PM PST · Old News (0 / 0) Yep, Ron Paul was openly racist in 1992. Don't forget what a huge issue "welfare reform" was in the mid 90s, and how much overt racism accompanied that debate. In 1996, the Houston Chronicle wrote some more about that same issue of the Ron Paul Report: Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." ... Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." ... Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults. He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks. "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote. Now he's learned to code his language. He only talks about racism as an abstract concept, unlinked from the actual history of hundreds of years of white supremacy. In Ron Paul's world, minorities are just as capable of and culpable for racism as whites (so we're all even). by repeat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:34 PM PST · the overt racist in the GOP field? (4+ / 0-)
you mean there's only one? Politics is like
driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:23:19 PM PST o Tancredo was the first to pop to mind (1+ / 0-)
Although I know he is now mercifully out. If only the rest of them (and Hillary) would drop out too. by iburl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:34:30 PM PST [ Parent ] · Explains the Republican connection (1+ / 0-)
You'd think someone like Mr. Paul would be an independent, until you consider the racism...which invariably tilts Republican. John Edwards '08 Carpe Millennium! by anonyMoses on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:47:07 PM PST · what I am surprised by (3+ / 0-)
I have been reading here a bit over the months, but haven't posted in a long time. This discussion motivates me to take the time to post. What surprises me here is all the attacks on Ron Paul ... with hardly ANY discussion of his stance on the ISSUES! Do y'all who are so absolutely against Ron Paul, have ANY IDEA where he stands on the crucial issues facing America? Do you realize how many years (decades) he has studied economics, and that he has some real plans to help reduce the devastating consequences of the impending collapse of the dollar, and collapse of our economy? (Almost every other candidate has NO plan to save Americans from financial ruin) Do you know that Ron Paul has studied about the Federal Reserve and the IRS extensively, and he is the ONLY candidate who understands the unconstitutional nature of these institutions, which are designed to impoverish the American people and turn them into mere serfs at the mercy of the elite & powerful bankers & their ilk? Come on, why not discuss these issues, so CRUCIAL to Americans and America as a nation?? by TruthStandsOut on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:21:53 AM PST · Bill Grigg has an interesting perspective: (1+ / 0-)
From the perspective of
an by West on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:28:04 AM PST · Is this related? (0 / 0) There are further allegations, and a discussion of them by West on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:36:02 AM PST · In The Balance (1+ / 0-)
I have never given a dime to a presidential candidate until I threw $10 at Ron Paul. Why? TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ. Sure he is a social dinosaur but a Dem Congress isn't going to let him get much of that agenda accomplished. The Commander in Chief can bring all the troops home with a phone call - Repugs, Dems and Carlyle Group be damned. Ron Paul is ready to make that call. From what I can see of the Dem front runners, they all want the war to continue at least through 2013 - what are they smoking? Hope they save me the roach. I view the Dems ignoring the mandate we gave them to end the war and call Bush out as a betrayal. Last time I looked, impeachment was still off the table when it should be the only thing on the table. Ron Paul could be my payback to the lily-livered sycophant Dems. Can you say Nader? Regarding Ron Paul's racism, I get riled sometimes when we lefties get a little too outraged at the truth. How many of you white liberal gals would go walking alone in Harlem at 3am? I would guess very few. Why? Because of unspoken racism. Your brain is telling you that the statistical likelihood of being raped or assaulted by a person of color in that neighborhood is quite high. Statistical facts can sometimes be unpleasant. by BAKslider on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:46:16 AM PST · Explain the TR's on this, please? (0 / 0) Ok, so obviously I am an RP supporter. I am politically independent and (just so you know) I think Bush is probably the worst president ever. I hate neocons, and these days I am a fan of RP, Edwards, and McCain before he started ho'ing himself out to BushCo. Once Obama has some experience under his belt, I hope to support him as well. I'd like to take part in the lively debate here, but I'm not sure if that's really going to be allowed. And if the site really just wants to be an echo chamber, with no substantive discussion, then it's not going meet your goals or mine for me to post here. So here's my question. I had what I thought was a good post with real meat to it TR'd. I didn't even know what that was, so I found the FAQ, where it says: "To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation. " In that context, I am going to reproduce my comment below and ask for constructive criticism/explanation as to why it got TR'd. Specifically, how would change it to make it "acceptable," without totally emasculating it? I have been called all kinds of rude names in this thread and those posts have gotten thumbs-up. So I'm just trying to get a sense of how level the playing field is. My TR'd post: ------------------------
As has been stated ad nauseum here, Dr. Paul did not write that article. For every one of you that tries to salvage your smear by pointing out how he disavowed it (or the Stormfront donation(s)) "too little, too late," I would ask this in response: Show me where in public writings or speech (and there are DECADES from which you can draw, so this should be dead easy) he has said anything REMOTELY like the content of that article. You CAN'T. IT'S NOT THERE. Because the man is not a racist. As for every other "racist" vote "no" against some bill or other (the Congressional medal issue, etc.), it is always most simply explained with his strict Constitutionalist views. If the government disproportionately gives money to a demographic, then shrinking the government can be spun as racism against that demographic. Hell, Dr. Paul has suggested a black man to be his running mate: "... a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams is a very good economist." That is, if he doesn't end up running with another man of true principles, Dennis Kucinich. DailyKos and others are
getting desperate. Surely pointing out that RP wants a black VP (with a link to source, no less) is a valuable part of this discussion? by abplayer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:05:00 AM PST · Ron Paul takes House floor to honor Muhammad Ali (1+ / 0-)
Part of the speech (one of only two white Representatives speaking for the resolution): "... he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time ... He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality ... we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had" "I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated." by abplayer on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:21:00 PM PST · Nice to see the obligatory "in the GOP field" (0 / 0) when the "Kossacks" constantly say that the winner of the latest GOP debate was... Ron Paul. And what of the "anti-Zionists" that dKos bloggers link to who just coincidentally turn out to also be antisemitic? Note that I'm not making any apologies for Ron Paul, quite the contrary in fact. It's refreshing to see him finally opposed on both sides of the aisle, but it's kind of dishonest to try to associate him so strongly with the Republican Party when he has more support among Democrats. by OneGyT on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:54:51 PM PST · Whether RP is a Bigot is Beside the Point (0 / 0) Ron Paul makes sense when as long as he sticks to critiquing the war in Iraq and other neo-con disasters. Once he gets off that subject, he's a total wingnut even if you let him explain away the racist rants in his old newsletter. Sadly, his cult-like followers don't seem to see past the anti-Iraq, anti-D.C. folksiness of this Ross Perot wannabe. Paul advocates an extreme states’ rights position and Darwinian economic policies that predate the 1929 crash. He would essentially gut federal taxation and social spending and privatize everything from social security to education. But, oddly for a so-called libertarian, he has extreme Christianist beliefs and supports the "Human Life Amendment" which would proclaim that human life begins at conception. RP claims the amendment would simply repeal Roe v. Wade and give states the power to permit or restrict abortion, but that is disingenuous given the supremacy of federal law. No state could permit abortion (or embryonic research for that matter) if embryos were declared human life by the supreme law of the land. RP is a rabid sheep in libertarian clothes. by Grow Herbs on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:48:36 PM PST · Kossacks? How about KosTards (0 / 0) I've seen a lot more reasonable and articulate debate on Ron Paul forums than I have seen among diehard KosTards on this site. Actually, I've seen more reasoned and articulate debate from the backside of a cow in mid-crap. Ron Paul is not a racist, ya bunch a freakin, nothin better to do than whine wimps! He stated on Meet the
Press that he has the highest approval rating of any Republican candidate among
blacks. But to KosTards, that doesn't mean much. by fstaheli on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:30:19 PM PST
|
               |
|
Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
