Anonymous Hacks White Supremacist Site, Finds Direct Links to Ron Paul

Yes, that he is...

Hetep and Respect Creepingjesus, interesting handle what does it mean?

Ron Paul?

He's the racist, right?

RIGHT, died in the wool White supremacist, Cultural Terrorist from back in the time his decades terrorist news letters. Not to mention his contemporary declarations that the civil war and civil rights law were terrible travesties against property rights. This is just one more nail in Mr, Ron, the Racist, Paul's political coffin.

As a citizen I like his abolish the Federal Reserve which, is not federal nor has any "reserves". I like his Foreign policy, close the bases and bring our young people home. However, as an African American his domestic policy is problematic to say the least, lol.

Elect NO Republican for 100 years, starting in 2012.

the Lynching of Ron Paul

That trivializes the memories of people who really were lynched, but that was the goal, wasn't it?

the Lynching of Ron Paul

Hmmmm....speaking of Ron Paul's racism, I fund this to be interesting:

In fact, Dr. Paul defended some of these racist statements in an interview with the Dallas Morning News in 1996. One newsletter said that young Black men are "unbelievably fleet of foot." Dr. Paul confirmed this opinion by telling the newspaper "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them." Another article in the newsletter (from 1992, just 4 years before this controversy first erupted) said:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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."

(Link)

The material under the "Quotes" heading in particular reveal him to be a pretty typical far-right crackpot.

I love how those on the left so easily condemn Ron Paul yet excuse Obama for much worse

People who have watched Paul for any length of time already know things don't add up when it comes to him.

Very true, blue wolf.

Since we are talking about racism:

WATCH And THIS

It is so sad when the truebelievers cannot just give it up.

You have my pity lincoln.

Pauls' stance on the civil rights act alone is enough to label him a full blown racist bigot. Any stance of his contradictory to such racist bigoted sentiment is only evidence of his kookiness, he is still a racist - just one who comes off as kookie and frankly, quite disingenuous.

our racist wars,

People who think "race" is important would classify Iraqis as "Caucasian". And, in fact, indigenous peoples in that part of the world might be considered not only "Caucasian" -- but also even "Aryan"!

"Racist" wars?

I dunno-- it seems to me that Iraq was all about oil. I think that any other arguments are just people trying to use them to push one political agenda or another.

I really do think its pretty obvious that the reason Bush attacked Iraq was oil-- plain and simple. In fact-- he would've done it for that reason no matter what colour skin the iraqis had (even if it was Chartreuse-- or Taupe- or even Red and White candy stripes!)

Rand Paul has publicly talked about why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not have been passed. Libertarians don't believe that anti-racist laws should apply to businesses... Both Rand and Ron are firm believers of that. I have posted several stories on that topic...

Thanks

i though so, but was wondering after watching Rand try to get around that when Rachel had him on, i could tell he was not being remotely true.

the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Paul (take your pick) actually claims the fairness comes when people like him have the right not to support racist bigoted lunch counters along with the right to support them if we wanted to as well -it's all about choice & freedom & the natural course of things!?! Of course the black person being refused service has no choice - but what concern is that of the Pauls :( Apparently it's a great concern to them and their bigoted racist agenda.

so if Ron is involved, makes you wonder about Rand.

The only thing I wonder about Rand Paul is if he really believes he's fooling anyone with that rug.

Rand Paul always reminded me of one of Hitler's Brown Shirts. Couldn't really put a finger on it, but that is always the impression I got.

If it smells like @!$%# it is @!$%# and this reeks of a cesspool!

If it smells like @!$%# it is @!$%# and this reeks of a cesspool!

Just like the Obama Administration.

Oh DB...

I never tire of your "Nuh uh! You are!" commentary.

Keep up the comedy! Maybe you can upload a puppet show to youtube for us to enjoy next.

Just doing what the left does on a daily basis. You know, that old good for the goose thing.

Shoe doesn't feel so good does it?

Not my shoe. I could give a @!$%#.

I don't know what it is, but somehow I picture you as John C. Riley in the movie Stepbrothers...

And you never really do anything to change that image...

Hilarious!

Picture me as you wish, I could give a @!$%#.

Hilarious indeed.

Well, as a practical matter, whether he is a racist or just panders to racists is beside the point. If his policy proposals result in racist outcomes, then he is effectively a racist.

If Ron Paul does well in the South, that will take care of any doubts anyone has.

pat who? oh - the idiotic jesus freak...

pat who? oh - the idiotic jesus freak...

No, you are thinking of Pat Robertson.

Pat Buchanan is the former MSNBC contributor who thinks the Nazis were to be admired and who worries about whites becoming a minority in the U.S. MSNBC has since suspended him. Although, I don't know why he was on there in the first place...

Nope.

He was pretty much on-point with that one...

Although, I don't know why he was on there in the first place...

Obviously as the token nutty conservative. Sometimes the tokens even get a bit too extreme, though.

Like on fox when they have the token liberal, who is almost always the most unattractive liberal they can find - while the rest of the very attractive looking talking heads literally surround him on the screen and berate him.

Hilarity.

who is almost always the most unattractive liberal they can find -

Poor Alan Colmes.

Sometimes they show their true ugly selves, Krauthammer! The man puts the UG back in ugly!

Sometimes they show their true ugly selves, Krauthammer! The man puts the UG back in ugly!

Fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down?

{{{{Soph}}}}! Little smooch for ya love! =)

they put on ties and coats and grew their hair a little longer, and WAM they are now republicans in good/great standing.

What? A racist wants to dismantle our racist empire, end our racist wars,

Know who else was "against war"? The German American Bund.

Know who else was "against war"? The German American Bund.

There's nothing wrong with being against war. But if you take the position that one of the most shameful chapters in American history wasn't so bad, it kind of undermines your case.

Yes, it would have been great if the Civil War could have been settled without bloodshed. Does anyone, other than Ron Paul, think that was even a remote possibility?

The Civil War was provoked by the idea that there could be additional slave states as we expanded to the West. So to say that the war was not about slavery is to ignore the actual historical climate that existed when the South preemptively attacked the North.

Know who else was "against war"? The German American Bund.

Quite true.

Btw, speaking of WWII and fascism, here's a really fascinating short essay on the subject by George Orwell-- very perceptive: Pacifism and the War.

Excerpt:

Pacifism.

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense.

If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.

Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

Democrat 2012 Slogan: We're not perfect, but they're nuts!

Perfect! LOL!

"The documents show numerous connections between Republican candidate Ron Paul and these racist Neanderthals; they’re heavily involved in campaigning for Paul, and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself:"

Should I be surprised?

Should a black restaurant owner be able to refuse service to a self declared KKK member?

No. But, he can spit in his food. Nice comparison, there. Freedom riders who forcibly integrated lunch counters and the brain dead morons who beat them and killed them. And you are right. Race is not the biggest problem this nation faces. Paul's ideas on how to solve those problems are even better reasons to send this mental defect back to Texas.

Like a kkk member is going to eat in a black owned restraunt.........

Geez man.

You funny!

And the answer is NO, at least not because of the color of his skin.

too easy buddy :)

Ask yourself this... Should a black restaurant owner be able to refuse service to a self declared KKK member?

Here's a homespun bit of wisdom that applies to your question:

Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

If the KKK member conducts himself as a decent human being, then no. If he starts trouble, then the remaining patrons aren't obligated to put up with him. Out the door.

If the Pope showed up in a restaurant and started a fight, he'd be equally out the door.

Incidentally, I chose the Pope in this analogy because he also has a pointy white hat. Read nothing more into it.

Ask yourself this... Should a black restaurant owner be able to refuse service to a self declared KKK member?

...and miss out on the chance to pee in the KKK member's lemonade? Come on Man!

is he properly dressed in white robe and hood?

13.4 LOL

hell i am not a minority, but i wouldn't mind doing that myself.

consensus appears to be that it would be discriminatory to refuse service (even if the sign says "for any reason...")

I remember when Alex Haley interviewed George Lincoln Rockwell. (the author of "Roots" interviewing der local fuehrer of the 'Murcun NAZI partly - only "partly sane", of course).

For whatever reason, it was an "enlightening" interview.

Ask yourself this... Should a black restaurant owner be able to refuse service to a self declared KKK member?

Why not? If it bothers the owner sure! Why do you ask? If comparing to a white biz owner refusing to serve a black person, there is no comparison in that one can choose to be a self-proclaimed KKK member - in fact one would have to go out of their way to do so, it would have to be out of choice that the person proclaimed they were a KKK member. A black person does not have any choice as to the color of their skin they are born with, a black person can not choose to be black or not - they simply are black, it is who they are by default. Being a self proclaimed KKK member is an ornament one wears on their tree of life as a badge of honor and nothing more, with the choice to remove or not use such a badge in the first place. If one of those New Black Panther kats FauxNews got their panties in a wad over walked into my restaurant slapping a stick in their hand calling white people cracker or in some other way was making myself or any of my patrons uncomfortable, I would ask them to leave - just as I would an overt racist bigot, especially a KKK member, his ass would be on the curb if he refused too - same with a New Black Panther with a reputation or self proclamation of openly hating "crackers". I seem to recall a biz owner recently refusing an R service because of the R's stance on LGBT folk - she didn't like his self proclaimed homophobic POV and told him to leave, which he did - that was awesome! http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/senator-booted-from-restaurant-over-homophobic-views/

Koodos to the Biz owner for kicking that homophobic @!$%# to the curb! That is a far cry from refusing service to someone because of their ethnicity etc... It doesn't even compare to refusing service to someone because they don't speak English, though that some how comes closer in logic - it still does not come close enough to be a fair comparison.

Hackers, or data thieves, provide data which I am supposed to believe is accurate?

I'll believe the group Anonymous before I believe Ron Paul any day of the week.

Why would they lie? After all, they are "just in it for the lulz." Ron Paul, on the other hand...

Incidentally, I chose the Pope in this analogy because he also has a pointy white hat. Read nothing more into it.

@Rorschach-558483

How can someone with the username "Rorschach" tell me to "read nothing more into it?" ;-)

I would just like to point out that I think that someone who opens a business should be allowed to serve or not serve whomever they want. If they don't want to serve black people, or women, or fat people, or scorpios or star trek fans.. fine by me. They will have to deal with whatever professional and social ramifications that brings on them. I don't think it's a *good* thing if they discriminate.. but I think it should be within their rights as a private business owner.

I am also definitely *not* a racist. I think everybody is equal and should be respected as human beings. I love multiculturalism and being a diehard blues/funk/soul/jazz music fan I have more than once wished I was born black.. and I would also be fine with a nightclub being "black only".

I'm just saying that just because someone is against the concept of "mandated morality" (as hewhoiscalledj puts it), it does not mean that they are racist. Its like calling Noam Chomsky anti-semetic for ideologically defending Robert Faurisson's right to free speech. It's disingenuous.

If you think racists should be allowed to discriminate in public accommodations, who cares if you think you are personally a racist. Your defense of the right to discriminate and the right of those with power to deny those without the ability to make thief lives better by attending any school they choose; to have a job they are qualified for; to have access to places where others gather, makes you no better than a racist. At least the racist is honest about what motivates them.

I would just like to point out that I think that someone who opens a business should be allowed to serve or not serve whomever they want. If they don't want to serve black people, or women, or fat people, or scorpios or star trek fans.. fine by me.

In your example, only discriminating against Star Trek fans would be valid. The rest are things that are beyond the control of those potentially being discriminated against. You cannot change your race, gender, etc. You CAN choose to realize that William Shatner was right when he told Trekkies to "get a life." Fandom is voluntary and therefore not a protected class. Get it?

P.S. Discriminating against people based on their astrological sign would be just plain weird.

gatoralum

If you think racists should be allowed to discriminate in public accommodations, who cares if you think you are personally a racist. Your defense of the right to discriminate and the right of those with power to deny those without the ability to make thief lives better by attending any school they choose; to have a job they are qualified for; to have access to places where others gather, makes you no better than a racist. At least the racist is honest about what motivates them.

Schools: I don't think that discrimination should be allowed from any state or state funded body. Just as government and religion are to be kept separate, I don't believe any preferential treatment should be given by the government to one group or another based race or sex or religion, etc. And I think the two ideas are pretty similar. But if you open a private school, then yes, I believe you should be able to serve exclusively the clientele you choose. (Catholic girl's school, anyone?)

As far as hiring: If I am Israeli and the best qualified person for my job is Palestinian, should I be sued if I don't hire him? (Or the other way around)

If I open a small little flower store, I should have to sell flowers to everybody? Even jerks that I don't particularly like? Cant I say I only want to sell stuff to people I like? I have to be legislated into smiling and serving somebody who I can't stand (for whatever reason)?

So you can disagree with me, fine... but for you to say that I am as bad as a racist and dishonest about my motivations simply because you don't agree with my philosophical angle on this seems to somehow put *you* into the "judging and slandering people you know know nothing about" territory, doesn't it?

douglasq

In your example, only discriminating against Star Trek fans would be valid.

I think discrimination is discrimination. I have always thought the "permanent vs changeable condition" argument is weak. It would indicate that discriminating against a black person is bad, but discriminating against Mormons is ok. To me, "No Star Trek Fans" is just as "valid" as "No Gays". Discrimination is discrimination. You chose a group and say, "Nope. Don't want any here" (for whatever reason). The fact that someone *could* hypothetically change to then access your services seems kind of immaterial to me. I think you should be able to supply the fruits of your labor to the people you want to, even at the exclusion of others who you are not particularly fond of.

What about door policies at nightclubs? Wouldn't you say that that is blatantly illegal and a rights violation? Or is it simply a business owner determining the clientele he wants to serve?

What about movies only hiring beautiful actors for their movies? They are discriminating against ugly people!

P.S. Discriminating against people based on their astrological sign would be just plain weird.

I think all discrimination is pretty weird. Ditto that for much of human behaviour. I just don't think that human behaviour of should be enforced from the State. I don't think the State should pass laws that force people to conform to a certain behavioural ideal. That would then indicate that if a government was in power that I didn't like, that they could also pass laws forcing me to conform to whatever their idea of a "better human being" is. if someone commits a crime, or harms someone in some way.. then yes, State should step in.

But if I, as a hypothetically lesbian private business owner, don't want to serve straight people at my cafe... I think that should be within my rights. Ditto if I am a Croatian landlord and a Serbian applies for my apartment. I would also support a woman boss who wants to have an all-female workplace.

And if there are enough landlords that don't want to rent an apartment to an Indian family that the Indian family cant find a place to live. Then I think they are in a place where people don't like Indians and they should maybe look somewhere else. If they cant find anyone in a whole country that would rent an apartment to them then I would say the the People of that country seem to be indicating that they are not cool with Indians living there. C'est la vie. Conversely, if there are a lot of homeless Indian families wandering around then it seems like it would be a good business opportunity for someone who had no problem with them and wanted to provide housing opportunities.

To say that these laws must be in place or blacks would still be slaves and women would still not be allowed to vote doesn't cut it with me. It's like saying if Edison hadn't been born we would all still be reading by candlelight. Things would change anyways, just in a different way. And it's always better if that change comes from the bottom up, then the top down.

So that's why I say its unfair to call anyone who stands behind thoughts like this a racist. And I think it raises some interesting questions about "judging", no?

Sorry for the long post.

douglasq

@Rorschach-558483

How can someone with the username "Rorschach" tell me to "read nothing more into it?" ;-)

well, that's an... interesting interpretation of my remark. Tell me about your childhood. :)

Sorry for the long post.

A long sincere post is always preferable to a short, trollish one.

Many of your examples do not distinguish between who a person is and what a person has done.

A lesbian business owner with a pattern of discriminating against straight customers would be just as much a problem as if the situation were reversed. Why? Not because the person cannot change but because she would be discriminating against an entire class of people. Turning away an individual doesn't meet that standard. So it is kind of a combination of who and why.

I just don't think that human behaviour of should be enforced from the State. I don't think the State should pass laws that force people to conform to a certain behavioural ideal.

Behavior is enforced by the "State" all the time. Why can't you drive the wrong way down a one way street if you feel like it? Why aren't stop signs optional? The answer is because there are other people on the street, too. And you endanger them by not following the established rules. The same is true of discrimination of the type we are talking about. You may say, "It doesn't endanger someone to be denied service in a restaurant." But it wasn't that long ago that societal attitudes toward minorities were the justification for far more dangerous and sometimes lethal behavior by the majority.

And if there are enough landlords that don't want to rent an apartment to an Indian family that the Indian family cant find a place to live. Then I think they are in a place where people don't like Indians and they should maybe look somewhere else. If they cant find anyone in a whole country that would rent an apartment to them then I would say the the People of that country seem to be indicating that they are not cool with Indians living there. C'est la vie.

So, replace "Indians" with "Jews" and you get the horror story that was 1930's Germany. See the problem? Fast forward to the present day and instead of Right wingers blaming Jews for their problems (and that was indeed what was happening in Nazi Germany), they now blame Mexicans. And the Mexicans get to suffer all the civil rights abuses that come along with "C'est la vie."

well, that's an... interesting interpretation of my remark. Tell me about your childhood. :)

I don't think my HMO covers you. ;-)

Tychno. Your response to me demonstrates that you have no idea what civil rights laws prohibit. They do not require that you allow people you don't like into your flower shop. You an refuse to serve jerks. If, however, you are so @!$%#ing ignorant that you don't like black people because they are black, you cannot refuse to serve them. And, obviously, all girls schools or schools that educate members of their own faith are not in violation of civil rights laws. They do lawfully exist, in case you did not know.

After you educate yourself on what civil rights laws actually require. come back and we can talk.

So that's why I say its unfair to call anyone who stands behind thoughts like this a racist. And I think it raises some interesting questions about "judging", no?

Oh if life was only so simple :) I fully understand there is some hypocrisy to this statement, but that's life: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138333564/american-fascists-the-christian-right-and-the-war-on-america?tab=excerpt#excerpt

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

— Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

douglasq

I don't think my HMO covers you. ;-)

I'll check.

gatoralum

Tychno. Your response to me demonstrates that you have no idea what civil rights laws prohibit. They do not require that you allow people you don't like into your flower shop. You an refuse to serve jerks. If, however, you are so @!$%#ing ignorant that you don't like black people because they are black, you cannot refuse to serve them. And, obviously, all girls schools or schools that educate members of their own faith are not in violation of civil rights laws. They do lawfully exist, in case you did not know.

After you educate yourself on what civil rights laws actually require. come back and we can talk.

I am aware of what civil rights are and what they pertain to. And I am also aware that not all of my arguments fall under the umbrella of "civil rights issues" but I also *made it very clear* that I don't see much difference between different kinds of discrimination *that was a major feature of my argument*. So get off your high-horse please.

You say it's fine to refuse someone who you think is a jerk, but you just cant refuse a group that exhibits characteristics that you don't like? That just seems inconsistent to me.

See... my point is that to me almost all discrimination is really the same. You are choosing something that you don't like and saying "I don't want to do business with this kind of person".

Again... I think all discrimination is bad, remember! But I defend people's right's to be a$$holes. And I'm not sure if there is so much difference between me opening a store and saying "only non-Jews allowed in here" and someone else opening up a school and saying "only Jews allowed in here".

douglasq

Many of your examples do not distinguish between who a person is and what a person has done.

Even that language is ambiguous. If I discriminate against Scientologists is it because of who they are or what they have done?

A lesbian business owner with a pattern of discriminating against straight customers would be just as much a problem as if the situation were reversed. Why? Not because the person cannot change but because she would be discriminating against an entire class of people. Turning away an individual doesn't meet that standard. So it is kind of a combination of who and why.

But I just don't think this is a matter of civil rights. It's her store. She doesn't like straight people. Get over it. That's where i'm at.

You may say, "It doesn't endanger someone to be denied service in a restaurant." But it wasn't that long ago that societal attitudes toward minorities were the justification for far more dangerous and sometimes lethal behavior by the majority.

But they are two COMPLETELY different things. And it's just like the fact that I can make threatening gestures at you and get up really close to you and put my nose in your face.. but the moment I *touch* you, then it becomes assault. Denial of service is not violating someones rights. Lynching them is. These are not on the same page.

So, replace "Indians" with "Jews" and you get the horror story that was 1930's Germany. See the problem? Fast forward to the present day and instead of Right wingers blaming Jews for their problems (and that was indeed what was happening in Nazi Germany), they now blame Mexicans.

But remember where i said that I had a line between what private business owners were doing and what the State does? I do not support state discrimination in any way.

(Your Nazi example is flawed because the persecution of the Jews was very much a "top-down" story pushed by the government first in WWI, then again by the Nazis. On a civil level the Jews were very much integrated in German society.)

I do respect private citizens rights to choose who they will do business with and who they wont and with whom they will associate and with whom the will not .. and I think that the ramifications will be self-generative without the government having to step in and enforce anything.

It's a philosophical thing. It's like if you are against the death penalty and then along comes someone who rapes and murders and is really a walking devil. But you are just ideologically opposed to the death penalty. It's the same deal with this issue for me.

And I think it's the same deal for Ron Paul.

So please be careful when cavalierly slinging around the slanderous label of "racist", because not everyone who is anti death penalty is on the side of the murderers and rapists, right?

And I think it's the same deal for Ron Paul.

Sorry. I don't buy that. Paul is using Libertarian philosophy to justify his racist beliefs. His contention that the South should have been financially compensated for the freed slaves is proof of that. Seriously? He's going to say the white slave owner's property rights trump the right of the slave to be free?

His contention that the South should have been financially compensated for the freed slaves is proof of that.

You are aware of the context that that idea of Paul's comes from right?

Here is the link (By the way, even though the header you will see say More Proof that Paul *Isn't* Racist .. it's clearly meant sarcastically and the story is trying to show how racist he actually is by showing this "pay for the slaves video" .. but actually watch the video please, I would really be interested in hearing what you think)

I'll give a quick summary. He believes that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War - that it was more about states rights. (He may be wrong on that but that doesn't make him a racist) He says that there were 11 other countries at the time that also had slavery.. and that all of them managed to get rid of it without incurring a terrible war (he is quite anti-war, as you know) .. and one of the ways the war could have been avoided is that the slaves could have been bought free.

So if you want to reduce that to "Paul is a racist because he believes the South should have been compensated for the slaves" you can go ahead... but I think it's a pretty weasely way to interpret the argument he is making there.

Incidentally, which other politicians can you imagine holding such intelligent discourse?

Jeez.. how to link to offsite content? It just keeps getting stripped?

Anyway - just google more-proof-congressman-ron-paul-isnt-racist-or-white-supremacist to find the link that I found. I really would be interested to hear if you see it as being as racist as you indicate?

(Again.. that link that I found there is definitely saying he is racist.. although I think the video speaks for itself.. that's why I'm interested in hearing if my view of it is so far off from what others see)

Tychonaut. You still have no understanding of the difference between bigotry and exercising judgment. There is a difference between judging people by the content of their character and judging them by the color of their skin, their religious faith, their nation of origin, their gender, their age, their real or perceived disability. You equate the two. One who does that is either lacking in intellect or morals, probably both. When I was referring a group's characteristics, I was referring to skin color and things that have nothing to do with the kind of person they are. Your comment reveals that you believe that such things do determine the kind of person one is. It is not surprising that you do not understand. Those who think it is perfectly fine to judge people by things like skin color or gender usually do not think they are doing anything wrong. They are just being rational. After all, if one black person commits a crime, that is enough to tell them that all are likely to do so. Certainly makes live easier. You don't have to bother with actually getting to know those who are different from you. The biggest lie that comes out of the mouths of libertarians and Paul supporters is that just because they support the right of racists to practice their racism, they themselves are not racist. They would not support racists if they did not see some validity to what they spout. And, no, you do not support rape and murder just because you oppose capital punishment of rapists and murders. The better analogy would be if you said that while you oppose rape, you don't think that the government should be involved in outlawing it. That is your position on unlawful discrimination. You not care that it harms those who are the victims of it. The right of the bigot is more important than the right of the citizen.

and one of the ways the war could have been avoided is that the slaves could have been bought free.

With that kind of thinking, the best way to defeat the mexican drug cartels would be for the government to buy all the drugs up.

(Again.. that link that I found there is definitely saying he is racist.. although I think the video speaks for itself.. that's why I'm interested in hearing if my view of it is so far off from what others see)

No, need to link. I've seen the video. Did it escape your notice that he gave the speech in front of a big, @!$%#ing Confederate flag? And it is not just that comment. It is a pattern of comments and writings and voting over the years that have been blatantly racist. Sorry. Paul is scum masquerading as a scholar.

gatoralum

gatoralum

Tychonaut. You still have no understanding of the difference between bigotry and exercising judgment. There is a difference between judging people by the content of their character and judging them by the color of their skin, their religious faith, their nation of origin, their gender, their age, their real or perceived disability. You equate the two. One who does that is either lacking in intellect or morals, probably both.

Thanks for that.

I think I make my position clear a few times. I do understand that there is a semantic difference between the two. I understand that saying "I don't like jocks" is slightly different than saying "I don't like Jews".

But in practical reality I don't believe that there is really that big a difference. The jock hater has an imagined idea of what all jocks are like. The anti-semite has an imagined idea of what all Jews are like. The fact that one happens to be generalizing a group of people together based on interest and the other on religion (or race, depending who you ask) is to me, as I have said already, pretty negligible. They are both engaging in the same kind of thought. And I don't really understand why one should be legal and the other not. And as I have said, I don't think this is *good* behaviour... just that I don't think it should be mandated by the government.

When I was referring a group's characteristics, I was referring to skin color and things that have nothing to do with the kind of person they are. Your comment reveals that you believe that such things do determine the kind of person one is. It is not surprising that you do not understand. Those who think it is perfectly fine to judge people by things like skin color or gender usually do not think they are doing anything wrong. They are just being rational. After all, if one black person commits a crime, that is enough to tell them that all are likely to do so. Certainly makes live easier. You don't have to bother with actually getting to know those who are different from you.

For your freeking information I have lived in 4 countries. I speak three languages. I currently live in Berlin, Germany. I play in 2 jazz/funk/world music bands with (amongst others) guys from Senegal, Nigeria, and black guys from the US. My girlfriend is a Bosnian Jew from Sarajevo. I have been active in anti-racism organizations in university and I currently volunteer as a guide at the concentration camp outside of town, Sachsenhausen. I am also helping with a book which is a collection of essays written by black people of all nationalities about their experiences integrating with German culture.

Who the F*&k is generalizing and judging people, gatoralum?

The better analogy would be if you said that while you oppose rape, you don't think that the government should be involved in outlawing it. That is your position on unlawful discrimination. You not care that it harms those who are the victims of it. The right of the bigot is more important than the right of the citizen.

I support the right of people to be dicks, gatoralum.

There are lots of things in the world that I don't like. But that does not mean that I want the government to write laws legislating all of them. If someone attacks someone they should be punished. If someone says "I don't want you in my restaurant", I think they are dicks but I dont think they should be arrested or sued.. and I would argue the point of weather the Jew's or jock's rights are being violated. If someone says "blacks are less intelligent than whites", then I think they should be challenged to provide credible evidence, but I don't think they should be arrested or sued. If someone says "the Holocaust didn't happen" I think they should be ridiculed or ignored, but I don't think they should be arrested or sued.

Perhaps any of these actions leads to something greater. But perhaps video games and rap create killers. Perhaps alcohol encourages all kinds of bad stuff. Perhaps Britney Spears causes teenage pregnancy. Perhaps perhaps perhaps..

I think that everybody should get along. I think people should try to respect other people when they communicate with them and not draw up some kind of preconceived notion about them and then call them names, gatoralum. I think people should try to understand where other people are coming from and not just discount them because they are different, even if they are somehow "distasteful". Because I think that most people make the decisions they do because they think that is the right thing to do, however misguided they may be.

I realize not everyone thinks this way. And some people behave in ways that I find bad and "bad for society", gatoralum. But I don't think that the government should step in and "correct" peoples behaviour. I think that the government should lead by example by equally respecting the rights of the citizens regardless of their foibles and differences. And then let social equilibrium take care of the rest .. only stepping in if things escalate to violence.

I realize that my philosophy is not perfect. But none are, and this is how I align myself on this issue.

And I don't assume that anyone who differs from my philosophy is automatically stupid or immoral or racist, gatoralum.

And I don't assume that anyone who differs from my philosophy is automatically stupid or immoral or racist, gatoralum. And the adverse can be said, some philosophies are inherently stupid, immoral, and or racist. Realistically, most people can tell the ones that are pretty easily, unless they actually are the ones that are advocating for such action.

tychonaut

His contention that the South should have been financially compensated for the freed slaves is proof of that.

You are aware of the context that that idea of Paul's comes from right?

I'll give a quick summary. He believes that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War - that it was more about states rights. (He may be wrong on that but that doesn't make him a racist) He says that there were 11 other countries at the time that also had slavery.. and that all of them managed to get rid of it without incurring a terrible war (he is quite anti-war, as you know) .. and one of the ways the war could have been avoided is that the slaves could have been bought free.

So if you want to reduce that to "Paul is a racist because he believes the South should have been compensated for the slaves" you can go ahead... but I think it's a pretty weasely way to interpret the argument he is making there.

Sure the Southern Slave owners should have been compensated, right after they paid the back wages of every human being that they "owned" and profited from.

Ron in CT

And the adverse can be said, some philosophies are inherently stupid, immoral, and or racist. Realistically, most people can tell the ones that are pretty easily, unless they actually are the ones that are advocating for such action.

Some are.. but I don't think Paul crosses into that territory.

I think he is more in the zone that I occupy, where if you just take a cursory look (and possibly have some kind of pre-determined conclusion that you would like to arrive at) you could paint a certain stereotypical picture.

I mean, from what I've said.. does it seem like I am a racist? And yet I also think the government should not police human behaviour (mandatory helmets - no .. seatbelt laws - no ..).

(I also didn't really get into the fact that when it comes to employment discrimination in professional organizations I totally support interior controls and auditory bodies - I just don't think it's the government's job)

I also work at a concentration camp, yet I don't think that Holocaust denial should be illegal.

I am also pro welfare, pro death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-capitalist/consumerist, anti-war..

Humans are allowed to be complex. Issues are allowed to be complex. The world is complex. After all... doesn't seems like it is some of the people here that are reducing people to stereotypes, making generalizations, calling names and judging people - all the while standing for tolerance and understanding. See?

To comment on your statements; I mean, from what I've said.. does it seem like I am a racist? I have seen no indication of such. However you have not, at least openly, advocated for those that are, as Ron Paul has. I do not believe you are receiving contributions from extreme groups that are racists, Ron Paul has. I see no evidence that you would allow a racist to post vile spew under your name, Ron Paul has.

There are a number of positions that Ron Paul advocates that I agree with, that does not make me a racist, nor does it mean that I believe Ron Paul is any more than an old fashion snake oil salesman. Many of his positions are purely anti-social, some are even racist. Does that mean he is a racist? No, I cannot look into any mans heart and ascertain his intentions. However, when you accept support from racists, when you speak the lingo at racist rallies, when you advocate for racist policy, what would you call him?

Ron Paul said it should have been up to social popularity to get rid of whites only lunch counters - that is either just plain stupid or racist stupid. Paul said the freedom comes when he can choose not to support such a bigoted biz, instead going across the street to a whites & blacks and others allowed biz and supporting them.

I've never heard him address how that would effect American citizens' right to freely travel, when surely there would be pockets great & small where whole towns or counties or even a sate or two would be able to muster enough popular racist sentiment that there simply would be no commercial choices for a black motorist traveling through the area.

He's all about freedom!?! What about the black family who runs out of gas in a town of racist white folk who won't even sell gas to blacks, wont provide lodging to blacks, won't allow blacks in their food establishments - even with a private bridge with no blacks allowed, being the only passage over a river for miles in each direction?

What if a black person gets shot while being mugged in front of a privately owned hospital that does not allow blacks?

Ron Paul said it should have been up to social popularity to get rid of whites only lunch counters

It goes beyond that. He wouldn't do anything to stop any state from reestablishing full-blown Jim Crow laws. In his interview with Tim Russert, he pointedly stressed that he would have favored desegregation by law for federal government facilities. He was to cowardly to say he wouldn't have a problem with codified state government segregation, but the implication fairly screamed.

Maybe Pual should try smoking a few doobies before the next debate...those never ending rambles are getting quite annoying.

maybe he HAS been toking. The proof would come if he shows that he has the munchies after he SHUTS UP. A stoned electorate doesn't CARE.

"You men go northward...you go southward...I'm gonna walk here around in a circle." (Mel Brooks - Robin Hood - Men in TIGHTS)

History of the world, dude.

Def not Men in tights but close... I wouldn't be surprised if he lit up every now and again... hell in KY he probably grows his own.

Paul is nothing but Larouche 2.0

I hate those annoying Larouche kids....I assume soon enough Paul people will be acting the same way as the larouche sheeple.

ah - just tell them to "go attempt an airborne act of sexual gratification with a revolving toroidal pastry" Translation - "take a flying @!$%# a rolling doughnut" I used to enjoy annoying the roachies in airports. I never got one of them to swing at me, though (even being utterly and totally abusive)

I usually ask them how they can support a convicted felon white supremacist and a holocaust denier.

They go into the same crap that many of the current right wingers do, they start getting pissy and demanding "proof" that he is an anti semite.

Yeah, I forgot about the douche larouche.

This is why ALL students should be FORCED to take US history from 9th grade to 12th, and if they go on n school they should be FORCED to take a FULL YEAR'S worth of US history, so that they LEARN about these reoccurring conartist bastards and stop following them.

Hell, every time some young fool starts praising ron, I like to remind them that the party of "youth" in Germany was the Nazi Party, because it had energy and simpleminded answers and was willing to act to get things done.

Paul is nothing but Larouche 2.0

Thank you. I've been saying that for ages.

No, i beg to differ

Any group set up to advocate against a particular race is racist.

O.K.

Well Blue Wolf, you may think that your definition is more accurate, but in reality every racist white supremacist organization claims it is not against the blacks or any non-white race. They always claim that all they are trying to do is to defend the white race. So we really need to understand that claiming to champion the white race is in reality being against every other race. The white race being a clear majority and holding most of the reins of power and the advantages of privilege in this country is hardly in need of defenders

I don't see it that cut and dried at all demo.

That is like saying if I advocate for forests that I am advocating against deserts.

Oh, those claimants you are talking about? They are lying :)

I would agree that not every group needs advocation though.

Ahhhh.... exclusive race advocacy groups are deemed racist or non-racist based on the populous.

I'm guessing no. Dude, if Ron Paul ate a human being on live Television, they'd spend all day praising Ron Paul's dining etiquette and choice of accompanying wine.

They won't. They'll just scream about the media being against Paul.

Finally, someone else has figured it out! Too bad the supporters of Paul are so hopeful that he can legalize their favorite recreational drugs they will never see it!

Now what else can we get you to agree on?

So, you agree that Ron Paul is racist?

Except they don't have that in common because Obama didn't circulate racist propaganda newsletters and doesn't believe that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against folks based on their skin color. The association with some racist org. is just frosting on the racist cupcake. Of course you already knew this and chose to make a blatantly ignorant comment anyway. Color me all surprised, hardly ever see righty say something completely ludicrous. Oh wait......

So, you agree that Ron Paul is racist?

Just as much as Obama is...

Obama didn't circulate racist propaganda newsletters

and you have proof knowingly did I suppose? GREAT! You can be an instant millionaire. All you have to do is sell the proof to the DNC!

doesn't believe that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against folks

Of course not because any Constitutional Professor knows that the only Rights you have are the ones Congress says you have! LoL!!! Care to do the Patriotic NDAA Two Step with me?

you already knew this and chose to make a blatantly ignorant comment anyway.

Pot, meet Kettle!

with some racist org. is just frosting on the racist cupcake

So Churches don't count? Not even if the Racist Pastor marries you? Okay, pass me some billy clubs so I can go poll-watch...

hardly ever see righty say something completely ludicrous

I'm as far Right as much as you are blinded by Partisan Bull@!$%#. Do you really want to go there? I can dance that tune all night long since I have a PROVEN track record for calling LIARS out on BOTH sides of the aisle! How About you? You ever call out your Precious Democrats for their @!$%#Ups? Or do you really believe they are hard at work protecting YOUR interests ahead of THEIRS? If so, I've got this Arizonia Beachfront Property and a NICE Golden Bridge to sell you too!

So, you agree that Ron Paul is racist?

Just as much as Obama is...

The fact that you can't give a straight yes or no answer to that question is telling.

The fact that you can't give a straight yes or no answer to that question is telling.

The answer was straight. Prove otherwise.

Ball's in your court!!!

Obama's relationship with a proven racist in Rev Wright which spand years and years is far more telling than these silly Ron Paul connections. Yet the leftists here on the vine and in the media excused Obama.

We just like The President better than silly old ron paul.

The statement Wright made that, more than any other, prompted rightists to tag him as a racist- "Goddamn America"- is no different in content than MLK's "America is too arrogant" declaration. The most striking thing about it is that Wright said "Goddamn America", and these people heard "Goddamn white people". What does that tell you?

Yet the leftists here on the vine and in the media excused Obama.

Is that anything like the rightists here on the vine and in the media that excused Pres Bush and Bob Jones interracial dating policies? That must be different since he, his father, and Reagan also spoke there so it must be okay.

"Goddamn America", and these people heard "Goddamn white people". What does that tell you?

Plants - I have to say that when they first started in on Wright I took a good look at what all the fuss was about and this is what I heard. I have no issue with what he said a I say it myself especially when it came to the policies of the previous 8 years. You are absolutely correct though, they heard what they wanted to hear, Goddamn white people!

In my opinion, MLK was even more forceful about it:

Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name.

not the point JB...our cause of liberty is greater than this election

Well, under ronpaulites, that would be rich white male liberty actually.

ryoushi must have been talking about Romney or Gingrich when he said "rich white male"...