Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

[... ]So long as he didn't let them affect his policy [...]

Is it not the case that that Paul is against the Civil Rights Act ?

(Also, aside from the racism thing there are still most of the lther things listed here: http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html )

[mainiac]

The Late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was a dues paying member of the KKK in the late 40s.  He realized his mistake and repented.  Know why people believed him?  Because he said he was sorry.  He explained that he screwed up.  He explained why he had believed hateful things at a young age and urged the young people of West Virginia to be more careful.  He spent 60 years in politics, got into the very good graces of the NAACP and endorsed the nations first black president but knew that the slate would never be wiped clean.

He could have weaseled his way out of this stain on his name very easily.  He was in his early 20s when he joined, left after only a few years, was never involved in any hate crimes and ran for office in a region where they honestly wouldn't have given a damn.  He could have told people it was a youthful indiscretion and the incident would have been quickly buried as that was the sort of thing that people did in the 40s and no one cared.

Robert Byrd did not take the easy way out though and I think the explanation is obvious: it was the right thing to do.  He was a deeply honorable man and the price of honor is that it forces you to do the right thing.  Listen to his speech against the authorization of force against Iraq sometime if you think politicians have no integrity.

Ron Paul has associated himself with distinctly unsavory characters and he has done so a hell of a lot more recently then the 1940s.  His constant denials and weaseling tell you everything you could possibly need to know about the man's character.

[Capntastic]

A COOL STRAWMAN

Arguing that because the white supremacists Ron Paul associates with aren't 'well known in the general public', it's excusable for Ron Paul to hang out with them as if he's some poor misguided Mr. Magoo, completely ignores the fact that not that many normal Americans are probably that informed about movers and shakers in the white power community.  The men he holds conference calls with, the men he plays golf with, are very truly racists of the most deplorable kind.  Anyone who willfully associates with them, leaning on them for support, is shameful.  The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter, has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently, and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government, rather than a federal one.  (he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)  These are all damning truths.  Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

[GreatJustice]

A COOL STRAWMAN

Arguing that because the white supremacists Ron Paul associates with aren't 'well known in the general public', it's excusable for Ron Paul to hang out with them as if he's some poor misguided Mr. Magoo, completely ignores the fact that not that many normal Americans are probably that informed about movers and shakers in the white power community.  The men he holds conference calls with, the men he plays golf with, are very truly racists of the most deplorable kind.  Anyone who willfully associates with them, leaning on them for support, is shameful.  The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter, has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently, and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government, rather than a federal one.  (he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)  These are all damning truths.  Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

Way to miss a huge part of the point.

He has associations with racists on occasion primarily because he doesn't know that they are, and he's hardly had long secret meetings with their leaders.

To assume that this is remotely true, you have to take a huge leap of logic in that you have to assume the words of a rather unhinged (from what he's tried in the past, anyway) white supremacist should be taken at complete face value, as though he never has and never will exaggerate in any way or outright lie. If hacks of German Neo-nazi sites had emails of similarly insane individuals claiming to have had secret meetings with the CDU, I doubt anyone would take them seriously.

Besides that,

The man has had his name attached to a violently racist newsletter

Which was "violently racist" for eight issues and had absolutely no connection to anything else he ever said.

has had ties with racist organizations both in the past and recently

Again, Obama was endorsed by the Communists and received their donations. This is not a legitimate "tie", nor are the deranged rantings claiming to be buddies of random e-racists.

and has expressed that the freedom he seeks is the freedom to be exploited and terrorized by a local government

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

(he is even inconsistent on this point, seeking a federal ban on abortion, but wanting states to be able to disregard a federal acceptance of gay marriage.)

Uh, no he doesn't. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn it into a state issue, which is entirely reasonable. He has even taken shots from goons like Santorum for not wanting to just ban it outright. He supported DOMA for those reasons.

Arguing that he's 70, and should thereby be excused of having a strong, recurring dislike of homosexuals, denies that there are people out there that also want economic, social, and drug reform, that don't simultaneously harbor the serious problems Ron Paul has.

No, that wasn't my entire argument by any means. Stop cherry picking.

I'm saying that, in addition to being 70, his dislike of homosexuals in utterly irrelevant because (A) unless he inexplicably betrayed his own principles he'd never act on it at all and (B) Literally every single candidate has the same views or worse. Yes indeed there are better alternatives than Ron Paul; I hardly think he's the Messiah. But he's easily the best politician you Americans have, and it kills me to watch you vote for absolute crooks like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over silly details and conspiracy theories. The only "better" candidate in that regard is Obama, and he's a crooked murderer with big rhetoric but a lack of a spinal cord.

[G-Flex]

Like how your constitution explicitly says it should be? You also ignore that there are any number of things that prevent state governments from going too far, most of which don't do a damn thing when your federal government oversteps its boundaries.

Er, Ron Paul wants to dismantle the things that "prevent state governments from going too far". Actively. I've named one.

Also: Ron Paul wants to override anything the constitution says about state law (regarding certain subjects). Let me put it this way: The only way the constitutionality of legislation can be maintained is through the courts stepping in and saying when something isn't constitutional. Ron Paul wants to remove that protection.

And I'm sorry, but no, the constitution does not explicitly state that states should specifically be left to their own devices regarding issues of civil rights and, say, establishment of religion. Hell, there are certain amendments that, according to the generally-held interpretations, state otherwise, such as the 14th.

He supported DOMA for those reasons.

Why would he support DOMA? DOMA was defining marriage at the federal level, which sounds like exactly the sort of thing he'd be against.

I'm saying that, in addition to being 70, his dislike of homosexuals in utterly irrelevant because (A) unless he inexplicably betrayed his own principles he'd never act on it at all

He already has acted on it. I've specifically mentioned the legislation that acts on it.

it kills me to watch you vote for absolute crooks like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over silly details and conspiracy theories.

Do you know what I dislike most about Ron Paul? It's not conspiracy theories. It's not even those newsletters. It's his actual policies and attitudes and the legislation he's written and tried to pass. Don't try to make us sound like tinfoil-hat crackpots when we're giving very explicit and clear reasons for disliking him.

[Capntastic]

Yeah dude, even if he hadn't had his picture taken with the founder of Stormfront, knowing full well who he was, his actual policies are little more than trying to shift America towards a minarchist Hellhole.

[GlyphGryph]

His only redeeming quality is a staunch opposition to the war on (some) drugs.

And honestly, that's nearly enough to get me to vote for him, the rest of his fucked up policies be damned.

But make no mistake - he is no saint.

[Capntastic]

You could vote for the Green Party who hates the war ondrugs, the other war, pollution, and is fairly solidly pro-rights.  Without the recurring ties with racists or "if someone is molested by their employer, they have the right to find a different job if they don't want to put up with it- otherwise they're partially to blame!" abhorrence.

[GlyphGryph]

If they'd run a candidate in the Republican primaries I might very well have done so. But they didn't, alas.

And I vote for people, not parties.

[Capntastic]

Well, keep an eye on them when the Democratic primaries roll up, I guess.  I doubt you'll see much action on the visible media spectrum, but with some digging you might find someone you agree with more than Ron Paul

[Heron TSG]

The only "better" candidate in that regard is Obama, and he's a crooked murderer with big rhetoric but a lack of a spinal cord.

That's a bit of a weighty statement you have there. I'm not sure what you're calling murder; as commander-in-chief, it is literally in his job description to help the military win the wars that they are/were in. The lack of a spinal cord thing has been thrown around ever since he started campaigning, but I'm not sure where it comes from. He refused to bypass Congress when they weren't going to raise the debt ceiling or come to an agreement, forcing them to actually do something. His stance ever since he came into office was that we need to get America out of its two wars. The brass disagreed with him about Iraq, but he pushed on to get everyone withdrawn. I could be wrong, but I believe the vast majority of Iraq veterans are home now. There's now a plan in place to get us out of Afghanistan by 2014. He's had to make some deals with the Republicans so that Congress would do anything at all, but that actually makes sense. Getting a partial deal for what you want is better than the whole government seizing up for the rest of the Congressional session.

What really cracks me up is that Romney is starting to call him 'a waffler'.

[kaijyuu]

Bit old, but I haven't been here since yesterday.

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

I have a libertarian friend I pall around with. That makes me libertarian, right?

(hint: no)



All this is moot unless we think it affects his policies. There's no reason to think it would affect his policies later if it's not affecting them right now, so there should be plenty of evidence to support your view that's not from 30 years ago or guilt by association.

[Nadaka]

Bit old, but I haven't been here since yesterday.

I hate to break it to you but palling around with well known figureheads in white supremacist circles is an action.

I have a libertarian friend I pall around with. That makes me libertarian, right?

(hint: no)



All this is moot unless we think it affects his policies. There's no reason to think it would affect his policies later if it's not affecting them right now, so there should be plenty of evidence to support your view that's not from 30 years ago or guilt by association.

It does affect his policies, right now, plenty of evidence to support it.

How about the fact that he still wants to repeal the 14th and 24th amendments? How about the fact that he still defends his vote against the civil rights bill that it infringes on the right of white business owners to discriminate?


There are limits to the guilt by association defense, Ron Paul surpasses those by orders of magnitude, and has and continues to advocate on behalf of the ideology of his associates. How about the fact that his friends are not just libertarians but the FOUNDER of THE AMERICAN NAZI PARTY, the FOUNDER of STORMFRONT, and CONVICTED RINGLEADER of a WHITE SUPREMACIST COUPE OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC and GRAND DRAGONS of the KKK. These are not isolated cases of random association, he works with these people knowing full well what they represent.

Well, keep an eye on them when the Democratic primaries roll up, I guess.  I doubt you'll see much action on the visible media spectrum, but with some digging you might find someone you agree with more than Ron Paul

Roseanne Barr is one of several green party candidates currently up for their presidential ticket, though she is basically there just to draw attention to the party.

Roseanne Barr (California) - Actress, comedian and farmer.
Winona LaDuke (Minnesota) - Native American activist, economist, writer and '96/'00 VP nominee.
Cynthia McKinney (California) - Ex-Georgia Congresswoman, Ex-State Rep., College Professor and '08 Nominee.
Kent Mesplay (California) - Biomedical engineer, environmental activist, '04/'08 candidate & '06 US Sen. candidate.
Harley Mikkelson (Michigan) - Retired state employee, Vietnam War veteran & frequent candidate.
Rhett Smith (Texas) - Company auditor, Navy veteran & frequent candidate.
Jill Stein (Massachusetts) - Physician, progressive activist, author & '02/10 Governor nominee.
Gary Swing (Colorado) - Festival promoter, peace activist & frequent candidate.

[PTTG??]

Like the Democrats are going to go with anyone but Obama.

[Leafsnail]

Do you know what I dislike most about Ron Paul? It's not conspiracy theories. It's not even those newsletters. It's his actual policies and attitudes and the legislation he's written and tried to pass.

I think this deserves repeating.  Even if he isn't racist, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm black people.  Even if he isn't homophobic, he writes and supports legislation that will massively harm homosexual people.  And that's before getting into his horrible economic ideas, and that his possible one USP to end the war on drugs would definitely not work since almost noone inside or outside of his party supports it.