Skip to main content

Hey, if Ron Paul wants to be the Iowa frontrunner, then he should be ready to accept the heightened media scrutiny about his past record.

So when I wrote about those racist newsletters put out under his name, some of his supporters took offense.  That, I expected to happen.  They come out of the woodwork in the comments section of any news article that's even slightly critical of Ron Paul.  But when they tried to dismiss all the newsletters by claiming Obama's MORE racist than Paul, well, they were just asking for a smackdown.

lol don't you feel pathetic in the fact that this is ALL you can try and get on him? Obama and all the other candidates are way more racist through their policies than Paul will ever be. BTW if all the pathetic people bashing on Ron Paul about this knew anything about libertarianism, they would know that we don't look at people as groups, but individuals.... the anti drug laws Obama enforces are far more racist than anything Ron could do.

So saying Ron Paul is a racist cuz of this.... again, pathetic.

Yeah policies speak louder than words (especially ones he didn't even write himself). Obama's drug war and sending poor kids to foreign countries to die for his own benefit seems more racist to me than a fucking newsletter published 20 yrs ago.

Smackdown below the fold.

First, here's all I wrote that set off these Ron Paul fans.

Oh, whaddaya know, back in 1995, Ron Paul DID know quite a bit about his newsletters, even bragging about publishing them, that he now pretends to know almost nothing about, that others wrote them, that others published them without his knowledge of what was going out under his name, etc.

Actual quote from one of his newsletters:

"If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play ...unsuspecting whites like pianos. If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible."

Even if you grant that he didn't personally write that, he certainly knew who DID write that, or at least who approved it for publication under his name. Nice to see him avoid all personal responsibility for it now.

Notice I was very careful NOT to call Ron Paul a racist.  Now, let me let Jay Smooth explain why I chose my words the way I did.  No matter how strong the evidence, simply calling Ron Paul a racist is a losing argument, because you will inevitably get derailed and off topic, which is exactly what they want.

Got it?

Now, aside from their comments I quoted above claiming Obama's more racist than Paul could ever be, one of them also posted this video showing black people defending Ron Paul, which in their minds proves Ron Paul cannot possibly be racist.

See why I showed y'all the Jay Smooth video?  See how easy it is to derail the argument?  It's like Stephen Colbert's black friend.

So, here's the smackdown response to Ron Paul fans, if you ever need one.

Gee, let's see, just where did I or that link I provided ever call Ron Paul a racist?  Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.  The issue here is that he isn't being truthful now when he claims he knew nothing about those newsletters and was simply "negligent", when we have him ON VIDEO from 1995 proudly talking about publishing them.  I'm saying he needs to come up with a better explanation when asked about this.

Actually, my opinion is that he didn't actually write most of the pieces in his newsletter.  But I also believe he DOES know who wrote them (my money's on Lew Rockwell), and is pretending that he has no clue how those pieces got into his newsletter.  Regardless, he still disseminated them and made a nice profit from those pieces.  The kindest explanation shows a serious lack of judgment and ability to manage on his part, and does raise doubts about his being fit to be President.  I'm being kind here.  Others would say that those newsletters were designed to make money off of racism by catering to those who sought to keep black people "in their place" and to gain racists' support at the polls as he tried to return to Congress.

I know you guys desperately want to change the subject and divert it to Obama, but hey, you were complaining earlier about the lack of any media scrutiny about Ron Paul.  Part of the media attention means focusing on a candidate's past actions and behaviors.  Or how about his CURRENT behavior of siding with the nutjobs at the John Birch Society, founded by the Koch brothers' dad?  You know, the group that still opposes the Civil Rights Act, thinks Eisenhower was a Communist spy, and thinks fluoride in our water is also a Communist plot to brainwash us?  He just spoke at the Society's 50th anniversary dinner.

Or how about his refusal to disavow the support he's getting from the white supremacist movement?  I make no claim as to whether or not he is a racist (none of us can truly know what's in his heart), but he sure is popular with Stormfront and other white supremacist groups.  Why is it that they keep gravitating towards him?  One of the Stormfront people wrote about Paul: "He promotes agendas and ideas that allow [White] Nationalism to flourish" as the reason they love him so much.  It's like this picture from The Simpsons; just replace "Fox News" with "Ron Paul".

Or maybe they like him so much because of his actual floor speech in the House condemning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for "diminishing individual liberty" that he gave... in 2004.  Again, this is not to say he is a racist.  I cannot know what's in his heart.

So yes, I'd love to talk about the issues.  I've said before that Paul is better than Obama on civil liberties; well, when it applies to males.  (BTW, when it comes to war, quick quiz, between Obama and Paul, which one voted to use military force in Afghanistan?)  But that doesn't excuse his batshit insane domestic policies, where he's almost exactly like Michele Bachmann.  He wants to not just reduce, but eliminate, the corporate tax rate.  [OK, upon further research, it seems he wants to lower it from 35% to 15%.  But he does want to eliminate the capital gains tax completely.] He wants to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments to our Constitution.  (Note: If you say you "love" the Constitution, but simultaneously want to get rid of/eviscerate multiple Amendments to it, then no, you don't actually "love" the Constitution.  You instead love a fictionalized version of the Constitution, and not the actual document itself.)

He's OK with Citizens United (he was the frickin' plaintiff on the original Citizens United court case), so corporations can spend UNLIMITED amounts of money to buy politicians and elections, or defeat the ones they don't like in a barrage of negative ads (see what happened to Russ Feingold).  He wants to get rid of safety regulations and let corporations police themselves.  He's a doctor but doesn't believe in evolution.  He not only wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but wants a FEDERAL BAN on abortion in all 50 states, per the pledge he just signed to Personhood USA.  Even in cases of rape and incest.

He wants to get rid of the Voting Rights Act and let those Southern states pass all forms of voter ID laws, which they even admit will affect black people the most.  So he's perfectly fine with a systemic racist statewide policy to disenfranchise minorities.  He still believes in that loony NAFTA superhighway conspiracy theory, and said at a debate earlier this year that a fence between the U.S. and Mexico would be used to keep Americans from ESCAPING to Mexico.  This is flat out tinfoil hat psycho talk.

He doesn't believe climate change is happening.  He said he wouldn't have killed bin Laden, and instead worked with Pakistan to arrest him, when we KNOW there were Pakistani officials in cahoots with bin Laden, so that he would've been alerted to any police action and been able to escape before it happened.  He wants anyone to be able to print their own money on the gold standard, which shows he has no understanding of the Panic of 1837, or of the boom and bust cycles we used to experience.  He wants to abolish the SEC so that the bankers get to police themselves.

He wants to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  And he wants to get rid of the EPA and let the 50 states decide their own pollution standards, which is also completely batshit insane because air particles don't care about state borders.

I'm sure there are other examples, but that's what I could think of for now.  :-)

For his part, Meteor Blades said:

The fact is that back in 1996, Paul was not denying that he wrote those newsletters. He was saying some of what was in them was taken "out of context," but he wasn't saying somebody else, somebody he didn't know, was writing those words.

Anybody who read them and bought the "out of context" assertion has a screw loose. More recently, he's been not only did he not write them but he also didn't read them. Anybody who believes that assertion has two screws loose.

He may not have actually penned the words, but you can be sure he read them before they were published. And whether he did so to "out-nigger" the white supremacists, as George Corley Wallace said in that most unfelicitous but telling phrase, or because he really believed it, doesn't matter. Ultimately, those newsletters were designed to make money off of racism by catering to those who seek to keep people of color in their place and to gain such racists' support at the polls. No fucking different than a guys who said they weren't racist but catered to racists by making "the coloreds" eat out on the sidewalk instead of at the diner counter.

When you push the line that those newsletters pushed, you're a racist. The Paulturds would dearly love to get him off the hook he's stuck himself on. But he's permanently impaled.

I await the Ron Paul fan's response.  It'll probably contain him calling me a traitor to this country for supporting Obama over Paul.  :-)

Update: I went back and added links to just about every claim I made in that entire response, in case you want further reading.  Careful, some of those links are to Ron Paul's website itself, away from the safe confines of DailyKos.  ;-)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (227+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance, Laurilei, DanceHallKing, shanikka, farmerchuck, Walt starr, debk, MichaelNY, tundraman, MartyM, jethrock, happy camper, missLotus, Dr Colossus, AnnieR, royce, LaughingPlanet, avsp, JonBarleycorn, banjolele, dmhlt 66, poco, pamelabrown, tardis10, Cedwyn, NYWheeler, Bionic, blue jersey mom, crystalboy, Curt Matlock, Loge, googie, tobendaro, Thinking Fella, mofembot, sherlyle, GenXangster, zerelda, Dood Abides, wretchedhive, elengul, Livvy5, SaintC, gfv6800, The grouch, Polly Syllabic, ask, lineatus, Supavash, DBunn, otto, ord avg guy, little lion, pucklady, grannysally, psilocynic, kestrel9000, DSC on the Plateau, papa monzano, Chitown Kev, clone12, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, begone, S F Hippie, Dirk McQuigley, RhymesWithUrple, exlrrp, cardinal, stlsophos, Dallasdoc, leftykook, Debbie in ME, commonmass, MKinTN, Its a New Day, glattonfolly, Deep Texan, annieli, LucyTooners, Tolmie Peak, Setsuna Mudo, Evolutionary, Denise Oliver Velez, roses, Wildthumb, Diogenes2008, bajadudes, TheLizardKing, FrankAletha, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, randallt, skohayes, MichiganChet, FindingMyVoice, ItsSimpleSimon, gatorcog, leonard145b, freelunch, OhioNatureMom, doroma, occams hatchet, makettle, Crabby Abbey, esquimaux, Joieau, kevinpdx, Shockwave, Nulwee, virginwoolf, rasbobbo, ichibon, Miniaussiefan, Purdue219, alrdouglas, ccr4nine, Matt Z, Fogiv, Lost and Found, trumpeter, CoolOnion, p gorden lippy, KVoimakas, kevin k, SherwoodB, skindig55, TechBob, ColoTim, FogCityJohn, Dirtandiron, dotsright, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, sawgrass727, zukesgirl64, Ckntfld, AoT, Chinton, prettygirlxoxoxo, aaraujo, Railfan, Black Max, myboo, citisven, fou, J V Calin, happymisanthropy, tommymet, middleagedhousewife, Empower Ink, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Debby, clinging to hope, Brunette, Radiogabs, Arenosa, anyname, Marjmar, Miggles, Viceroy, Habitat Vic, eru, smokeymonkey, sostos, DiegoUK, regis, PBen, Hedwig, Merry Light, sja, maggiejean, redlum jak, bnasley, cpresley, Moonwood, weatherdude, joelado, broths, antirove, estreya, stevenwag, Themistoclea, Jay C, La Gitane, Iron Spider, Kitsap River, clananderson, Lizabet, legendmn, Isaacsdad, JekyllnHyde, bluehen96, Eddie L, celdd, edsbrooklyn, markdd, International Progressive, JayBat, RatCitySqueaker, Sharoney, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Fiona West, ekyprogressive, BMarshall, Troutfishing, badlands, frisco, Meggie, aerie star, keirdubois, BoxNDox, Meteor Blades, Lefty Coaster, allergywoman, Lorikeet, kpbuick, shanay, Nowhere Man, Anglo, BuckMulligan, rapala, beka, Mathazar, millwood, science nerd, LaFeminista, Vacationland, Seneca Doane, splashy
  •  "Name One Obama Racist Policy" (20+ / 0-)

    would be my reply.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:06:42 AM PST

    •  They gave me two. (34+ / 0-)

      1. The war in Afghanistan, because it's killing off more minorities.

      2. Another one told me that because Ron Paul wants to end the "racist war on drugs", therefore that proves he cannot be racist.

      See, the problem there is, you've just ceded the ground, and are debating about Obama and how he may or may not be a racist.  The focus is no longer on what Ron Paul said or did.

    •  More racist? No. (11+ / 0-)

      But institutionalized racism is institutionalized racism, whether it comes in the form of shitty "War on Drugs" policies, or restaurants having all that awesome libertarian freedom to put up a "No Coloreds" sign.

      In any case, Obama's a classist rather than a racist like Paul.

      Corporate Dog

      We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

      by Corporate Dog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:33:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me understand this (7+ / 0-)

        When you say that more classist than racist, are you saying that Obama believes that there is one class of people who is better than others, and that they deserve more as a result?  

        I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

        by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:07:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If by "one class of people" you mean... (8+ / 0-)

          ... "multi-millionaires and other large scale actors in our economy" then, yes.

          He prefers to work within the system, when that system is notoriously corrupt and driven by lobbyist money.

          But then, the same could be said of most of our Presidents and elected officials at the federal level.

          Corporate Dog

          We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

          by Corporate Dog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:37:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you think (8+ / 0-)

            That Obama believes that one class of people is simply better than another class?  


            I think we sometimes say things like that in a glib manner, but you apparently do believe that you understand the motivations of the president, so I don't see how I could convince you otherwise, because I have no way of knowing the personal motivations of the president.  

            I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

            by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:59:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I believe that in a specific context, yes. (11+ / 0-)

              In my opinion, Obama believes that a certain class of people (the wealthy) are better suited to take the helm of our country, running our financial institutions, our government, our media, etc.

              It's not a particularly unique belief. So many in this country are mislead by the notion that the ability to make money transfers to a deeper knowledge of how to lead or craft policy... let's call it the Romney Paradox.

              But it's an easy belief to succumb to when you're so deeply entrenched in the Beltway, and everyone you surround yourself with has deep pockets.

              Corporate Dog

              We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

              by Corporate Dog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:16:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just wanted clarity on the position (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BruinKid, elmo

                Just wanted to know where you're coming from.  It requires a lot of assumptions to get to the point.  

                I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

                by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:27:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Does it? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Corporate Dog, Iron Spider

                  If one draws the easy parallel to uncovering racist attitudes, all one needs to do is examine his words and actions to see what assumptions underlie them.  Here, I would say I've never heard or heard of any word or action of Obama's that could be construed as relying on racist assumptions, however, a fair number of his policies and actions definitely show certain assumptions of valuing certain economic classes over others.   As MB says, show me what you do, and I'll tell you what you believe.

                  I will take the example of the freeze on federal worker pay as an example.  Here, he took an action that did effectively zero in terms of balancing the budget (and thus gets classified as a symbolic action) that nevertheless inflicted significant impacts on the working wage earners affected.  As a symbol, it really was primarily directed at the Wall Street classes concerned with deficits.  In doing so, he was pretty clearly willing to use a large impact on working people for a trivial benefit in the eyes of the monied classes.  Also, at a time when working people are hurting it was a big slap in their faces on a symbolic level.  Thus, we could clearly discern in that act a relative valuing of working people's opinions and monied people's opinions.

                  There are other examples that are more complex, but this one demonstrates the thinking in a pretty straightforward way.

                  •  I see a quite different motivation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The freeze on federal workers paychecks was not directed at the monied classes, it was directed at workers (and out of workers) in the private sector, many of whom haven't seen raises in years. They pay the salaries of government employees and are quite justified, I think, in asking why the people they pay should get raises when they themselves won't because of the poor economy.

                    •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                      Even though the private sector people get paid considerably more.  I suppose it could be an effort to put one group of workers against another in truly cynical Republican style.  That is different but not much of an improvement

                      •  No, we're all in the same boat together (0+ / 0-)

                        If private sector employees aren't getting raises, neither are public sector employees. I don't see that as pitting one group against another, I see that as fundamental fairness.

                  •  Show me what you do ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... and I'll tell you what you believe is a catchy little phrase, but i must respectfully disagree.  I could type anecdote after anecdote that would directly contradict the assertion, but i fully realize anecdotal evidence won't be very convincing.  The overarching truth is that we are complex animals managing complex issues and people often do the same thing for two entirely different reasons.

              •  Well, who is supposed to run our country, etc.? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Moonwood, conniptionfit
                In my opinion, Obama believes that a certain class of people (the wealthy) are better suited to take the helm of our country, running our financial institutions, our government, our media, etc.

                Granny Gums and Uncle Toke decreeing from their rocking chairs on the front porch? Or maybe Ma & Pa Corner Store or Johnny Grass Trimmer. I know, Tilly Hair-dresser because, being the gossip that she is, she has her finger on the pulse of what's going on in the country. Are these the people who should be running the country, businesses, banks, etc.? Thanks, but I'll pass.

                •  You missed the point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Corporate Dog

                  Mitt Romney is no more qualified to run the country by virtue of having made a lot of money buying out and ruining other people's companies than Granny Gums is.  And could you be any more condescending ?

                •  I think your post is a perfect example (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Corporate Dog

                  of class elitism.

                  I guess certain people are just born to rule.

                •  A Nobel Prize winner, maybe? That do it for you? (0+ / 0-)

                  I mean, Obama could listen to folks like Krugman and Stiglitz on the economy, but instead chooses to surround himself with folks like Summers and Geithner.

                  I'd say that illustrates the, "Money makers should lead our country." meme quite well. And look where it's gotten us.

                  Honestly, I think Granny Gums and Uncle Toke could do better.

                  Corporate Dog

                  We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                  by Corporate Dog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:49:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Right (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Moonwood, BoxNDox

                because he himself grew up wealthy, in a wealthy family, and then took his rightful place as leader in our country?

                You seem to be suggesting he espouses a philosophy to which he himself is a famous exception.

                •  Why would he be an exception? (0+ / 0-)

                  As a point of example, my father grew up dirt poor. His bedroom, growing up, was in my grandparents' basement. He and my mother both worked multiple jobs to put him through college and pharmacy school.

                  He ultimately made a lot of money by owning (and selling) his own pharmacy, and then parlaying it into real estate. His story, while not quite as uplifting as the President's, is every bit a rags-to-riches story.

                  And he's a Fox News watching, spit-on-the-poor, Republican.

                  Growing up with humble roots doesn't necessarily mean you honor them when you become a success.

                  Corporate Dog

                  We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

                  by Corporate Dog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:42:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Another aspect is the death penalty (0+ / 0-)

        Sources as disparate as the NYTs and Time agree it's racist:

        Death Penalty, Still Racist and Arbitrary

        The Death Penalty: Racist, Classist and Unfair

        Thus, by supporting the death penalty, Mr. Obama supports a racist policy.  Even though he himself, OF COURSE! is not racist . . ..

        •  The Death Penalty (which I abhor) (0+ / 0-)

          Is not racist except in practice.  As a series of statutes each law that authorizes the Death Penalty is race neutral. It is only in the implementation that it becomes racist. So if this is your evidence that President Obama is racist you would be more accurate if you said "President Obama supports the exclusion of black jurors from the venire" or that "President Obama supports Prosecutors choosing to seek the death penalty more often when the victim is white rather than a minority".   If you know that to be true.  There are people who believe the Death Penalty is an appropriate punishment who are not racist. But your "evidence" in the form of studies that show that the ultimate imposition of the death penalty is statistically racist does not prove that the President's approval of the Death Penalty in theory makes him racist.

          If you believe the President is racist (as does, I believe, Rush Limbaugh) then you need actual proof that President Obama supports racist principles and not just that he supports various issues which have alternate and legitimate theories of support behind them.  

  •  All of the Paulites (38+ / 0-)

    I have met are woefully uninformed, both about Paul's policy positions and their probable results, and the workings of the federal government. I've never talked to one, for example, who knew anything at all about the history of bank panics and depressions in the 19th century, or how Paul's no-regulations nonsense would take us back to those days when the only safe place for a dollar was under the mattress.

    Even if Paul were somehow elected, the drug war would not end, foreign bases would not close, nor would most of Paul's radical libertarianism ever become the law of the land. We'd just have another brain dead Republican screwing up decades of progress, same as Reagan and GW Bush. He might not want to start a war, but I'll bet the Pentagon and Congress could convince him to do it anyway.

    His supporters think he's something special, but he's not. He's just another variant on right wing Republicanism, a little less corporate than most, but not really all that different.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:22:33 AM PST

    •  One of my friends who is somewhat wealthy (8+ / 0-)

      thinks that someone like Ron Paul is needed to clean up the financial system in this country. He had hopes for Obama, but when he added Geithner to his team, my friend was shocked. Then, after refusing to go after all the Wall Street and Bush era evil and even getting in the way, that was the final straw.

      I can understand why some people, especially those in the upper middle class, are attracted to his message. They don't give a damn about civil rights or racism; they want someone to protect their wealth and not fritter it away on foreign wars, wars on drugs, and wall street bailouts.

      Ratings privileges revoked without explanation during the Great Purge. So, consider yourself recommended or hidden as you think you should be.

      by banjolele on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:30:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i think the upper middle class (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, Matt Z, elmo

        tend to be a little more small c conservative than all of that, wanting institutions to work better, not to replace them with the gold standard.  The appeal of Paul is, as Happy Camper notes, more among the less educated, or people educated in things other than economics.  His message resonates with a lot of tech people, because they prefer the logic of artificial languages or abstractions, and his economic theories offer a way out of the complexity of real world economics.  (not all of them!)

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:46:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a stereotype that IT professionals are (9+ / 0-)

          attracted to libertarianism, but as someone who worked in the field for 3 years, I can testify libertarians are only slightly more common in IT than elsewhere. They have a huge visibility on the Net, which helps strengthen the belief in "IT = libertarian."

          There used to be a lot of libertarians in science fiction fandom, too, but they're losing ground there also. Most of the younger kids at sci-fi cons these days are apolitical or somewhat liberal.

          Lea: "You're not going to fly into an asteroid field, are you?" Han Solo: "They'd be crazy to follow us, wouldn't they?"

          by Kimball Cross on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:32:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i only mentioned this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            as the exception to the exception.  I agree that Ron Paul people tend to be perhaps bright enough to "question authority" but not well educated or versed in details.  On the other hand, there is a small cadre of very vocal Ron Paul people who are well educated, and in my experience many come from the sciences.  As Ron Paulites are a minority in general, I'd expect them to be a minority in that field, too.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:48:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I noticed that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            among SF fandom as well, and when I looked at they why of it found some very popular writers who espoused it - Niven, Pournelle, Stirling, a couple of Heinlein books (he was all over the map), etc.

            But as those writers began to either die or to go off of the map, respect for them began to wane, and as their stuff stayed out there more and more people started asking direct, intelligent questions that shot those theories and philosophies full of holes.

            SF fandom is still rife with all sorts of ... interesting philosophies, but it is maturing in its own way.

            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

            by trumpeter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:49:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  well, as one myself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I am repulsed by  Paul's message on a huge number of levels.  His racism (of which I only brecently became aware) is massively disgusting.  However, his economic policies are batshit insane, albeit in a different way than Bachmann.  About the only thing I like about Paul is his willingness to say out loud where his libertarian philosophy leads to the Tea Party masses.  I figure at this point, Paul is probably the only messenger credible in their eyes who would say that Iraq was a disaster and in so doing counteract Fox a little bit.  That's only for popcorn value though.

      •  One = All the middle-class...that's your (0+ / 0-)

        ...interpretation? Thank goodness your opinion is just that and nothing else. Oh, and you are entitled to it...but that's all.

        Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

        by kalihikane on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:11:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think some are paid (9+ / 0-)

      There is no way that they can have such perfectly aligned talking points in every situation.  

      The argument that bruinkid had is exactly the argument I had.  

      I also don't bother with accusing people of being racist.  

      What I pointed out was that the comments thread on youtube was full of people who agreed with what was written in the newsletter.  So for me it was that Paul wrote the words, it was that his cultist followers actually agree with what he wrote.

      The entire comments thread on a Paul video is full of the worst discriminatory epithets someone can get away with now.  It's all "whore," "bitch," "pansy..."

      It's some really cruel language.  

      They are either cultists or paid ops.  

      I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

      by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:10:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't confuse the primary and the general. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruinKid, Kurt Sperry, Hind2

      I may vote for Paul in the primary, but I will certainly vote for Obama in the general.  I see no conflict whatsoever between these two positions.
      I absolutely see Ron Paul as the most appealing Republican candidate.

      I see the whole racism argument as irrelevant, mostly because it doesn't differentiate him from other candidates.  Do you honestly believe that Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich holds any more enlightened views on racial relations? Perry's DREAM support evaporated real fast under those spotlights...

      Same story on his forced birther position.  Do you honestly believe that Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum will be a crusader for reproductive choice and feminism in general?

      It's silly to talk about things that every candidate endorses.

      President Paul would be an unmitigated disaster, but if Candidate Paul can get President Obama to publicly demand a stop to the Drug War, remove bases from foreign countries en route to real reductions in the DOD budget, eliminate the TSA, and repeal the Patriot Act, it might be worth it.  Convince me  that the more likely result is that Obama will double down on all of these?

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:48:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. (8+ / 0-)

        I did post a quick follow-up to that Ron Paul fan after my long rant asking him if he realized I did want Paul to win Iowa and become the GOP nominee, though for very different reasons.  :-)

        Yeah, we could possibly see Obama be forced to go to the left on some civil liberties issues, while we could also finally show that the logical conclusion to the right-wing clamor for smaller and smaller government leads to this type of sheer lunacy that would have most Americans screaming in horror once they realized the true ramifications.

        •  Honestly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruinKid, Matt Z, Odysseus

          I told my bro this when obama go elected.  
          I figured that in an ironic historical tiwst, gay marriage and legalized cannabis would be two issues that make amazing advances during his presidency.  

          Obama was publicly against those two issues, so it would be an interesting twist.  

          I could absolutely see Obama directing a change for cannabis to a different schedule so that states can regulate it on their own.  

          I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

          by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:11:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I told Scott... (6+ / 0-)

            (formerly Clarknt67) at Netroots Nation this summer that I cynically felt that Obama would come out in favor of gay marriage shortly after multiple polls came out showing a clear majority of people in Ohio fully supporting gay marriage.  Well, if that happens before November 2012.  He'll probably come out in favor of it if he wins re-election sometime in 2013.  (Gotta do it at least a year before the 2014 midterms, ya know.)

            Because let's face it.  Americans are notorious for voting against their own economic self-interest because they got so distracted over hating "teh gays".  Even in a time of huge economic turmoil in 2008, 45.7% of Americans voted for the pro-DADT guy with 7 homes and a blathering idiot one heartbeat away from the button.  Basic math tells us the overwhelming majority of these people are part of the 99%.  And yet....

      •  I live in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, Debby, Odysseus

        an open primary state, and I usually vote for the least appealing Republican ;-)

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:53:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Candidate Paul would do none of those things (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kurt Sperry, Odysseus, BruinKid

        in a race against Obama. Those would be issues with which Obama would draw a contrast with Paul, and I don't think you're going to see Americans in 2012 rushing to support any of those issues in droves.

        If Paul were the nominee, I would imagine a fair number of Republicans would hold their noses and vote for Obama, just on these issues alone.

        •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, BruinKid

          I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot of quiet crossover voting among conservatives Obama's way in the event of an Obama-Paul race.  Mostly because compared to Paul, Obama is very much the more conservative of the two.

          Paul is in many ways a radical, and his libertarian viewpoint will have major if not fatal flaws in anyone who doesn't buy into the whole libertarian view.  He can attract a demographically interesting coalition of people from low information John Birch types to conspiracy theorists to nerdy software engineers but there's probably at least one plank in his platform that will fatally alienate not just most lefties but conservatives as well.

          I would loooooove to see many Obama-Paul debates though.  It would be a far more interesting policy debate with Paul as the GOP candidate.  Paul's dead on right on a few of the planks of his wacky policy platform where those views are opposite to Obama's.

          There's no way Obama loses to Paul. No way.

          Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

          by Kurt Sperry on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:04:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I can't see too many Republicans holding their (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruinKid, Odysseus

          noses and voting for a Democrat, no matter how much they hate the Republican nominee. That's true of everyone from Paul to Romney. They voted for a lazy, illiterate imbecile for the #2 slot last time around, and none of the clowns running now reach that level of rank disqualification.

          What I'm hoping will happen is there won't be an enthusiasm gap this year. The GOP base will stay home and we'll win some close down ballot races as a result.

    •  You sound to me like the Paulite you describe, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quequeg, Sparhawk

      or any other partisan whose argument is "you just don't have the facts", or "you just don't understand", or some other insulting nonsense, based on the extremely narrow belief that only you understand what is going on and anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot.

      And additionally, if the drug war would continue un checked, if the wars and occupations would continue un checked, then what would the difference be between the current Obama administration and that of Paul? You seem to be saying that Paul would be no different than Obama.

      His supporters think he's something special, but he's not. He's just another variant on right wing Republicanism

      I am guilty of this same miscalculation, for I thought Obama was something special, but, alas, he is just another variant on right wing Republicanism.
      •  I know enough (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, bluegrass50, BruinKid

        about history and Paul's positions to tell you that the Paulite's I've talked to often know next to nothing about either. How does that make me just like them?

        I'm certainly not saying Paul would be the same as Obama. Would Paul have increased Pell Grants, or saved the auto industry, or increased VA funding, or gotten rid of DADT? Would he be appointing liberal women to the SCOTUS? Of course not.

        I thought Obama was something special, but, alas, he is just another variant on right wing Republicanism.
        If Obama is a right wing Republican, why do right wing Republicans hate him so much?

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:22:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really? If anything, he's even more corporate than (0+ / 0-)

      the GOP Establishment. His brand of "Libertarianism" focuses almost exclusively on laissez faire free markets, which is just code for corporatism. He's the biggest deregulator of them all, saying loudly in public what the Romneys only whisper in private.

      Don't be fooled by his "legalize drugs" or "free speech" talk. It's all a bait and switch sales tactic.

  •  Here's the big difference with Ron Paul... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quequeg, Kurt Sperry, blue earth

    he may "want" lots of things, but he's the only candidate who respects the legal limitations of his office.

    Everyone should read this:

    Obama's drone murder program can't even be LEGALLY DISCUSSED in Washington... it really puts this GOP primary sideshow into perspective.

    I may disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, but at least he doesn't appear to be a lawless international terrorist of the Cheney-Bush-Obama mold.

    Oh, and you didn't "smack down" the poster - you didn't even address his argument - Obama's unyielding support of the racist drug war (he's ramped up marijuana prosecutions even higher than Bush) must be recognized before the 'R' word gets hollered at one of his opponents who does not support said racist drug war.

    •  if ron paul thinks (12+ / 0-)

      that it's unconstitutional for the President to conduct military operations using whatever tools are at his disposal, pursuant to an explicit authorization from Congress, he does not understand the limitations of his office.  Obama's claim to withhold certain legal rationales is, I believe wrong, but it's possible to just be wrong without

      If the drug war is racist -- and I'll stipulate it is -- it's racist because of a disparate impact, and then what to make of Paul's economics, which per Lee Atwater, "You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites."

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:51:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress declared War on Yemen? (5+ / 0-)

        Pakistan?  About 5 others?

        You really think the AUMF which authorizes the President to go after the 'people behind 9-11' makes this ok?

        We all LAUGHED at that argument when Dick Cheney made it - oh I forgot, it's all different now.

        •  i do, (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruinKid, Deep Texan, Matt Z, trumpeter, elmo

          i recall laughing at Cheney when he made that argument about Iraq, because Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda.  If someone joins AQ even after 9/11 they're part of the same organization.  The contrary logic would mean that a company that buys a polluter shouldn't have to pay for cleanup.  

          And conducting military operations in Yemen is not the same thing as going to war with (or on) Yemen.  But in any event, once we're in the world of statutory interpretation, then the Constitutional point is largely conceded.  Obama's not basing this on an inherent Article II power argument, and even if you have the better reading of the statute, Obama's isn't so unreasonable that it's tantamount to an Article II claim.  

          i also truncated part of a sentence -- i should say "wrong without acting in bad faith."

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:07:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the people behind 9/11 are all dead... (0+ / 0-)

            your tribal obsession with continuing endless war so long as Obama is in charge is sad.

            •  yes, the perpetrators behind 9/11 (0+ / 0-)

              died on 9/11.  Moussaoui is in jail.  KSM is in military custody.  (Fwiw, i think he should have gotten a civilian trial, but it's not awful that he won't.)  Bin Laden is dead.  Perhaps now might be a good time to repeal the AUMF.  I'd want to know more before i reached that conclusion, since part of the AUMF was retribution part was preventative.

              At the same time, "tribal obsession" is a bit beside the point, since this is simply a matter of statutory interpretation -- can the AUMF reasonably be read to do what Obama claims it does?  It can.  If any obsession is involved, it's running the other way.  There are better ways to prove your independence than by demonstrating lack of reason.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:04:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you can read anything... (0+ / 0-)

                anyway you want.  To me "the forces behind 9/11" don't justify invading Libya.  The question is which reading gets us to the most moral and just place.

                Do you support endless war or not?  You can't support Obama without supporting his endless war.

                •  good thing that wasn't the reason (0+ / 0-)

                  we invaded Lybia.  Oh wait, we didn't invade Libya.  The notion that supporting Obama is necessarily supporting "endless war" is both false and a non sequitur.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:36:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  It wasn't his argument (9+ / 0-)

      His argument wasn't a comparison of he relative racism of the candidates.  

      The point you seem to miss, and I notice this with many Paul supporters, is that the discussion changed from Ron Paul to Obama.  

      It's the first thing you learn in remedial "arguing with children" classes.  "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

      I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

      by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:14:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quequeg, Sparhawk

        exactly what his argument was.  He didn't sound like the most coherent debater.

        But it IS a valid argument to point at Ron Paul's stance on the drug war as a bonafide against racism charges.

        And discussing Obama is a logical extension of any discussion about Ron Paul... if he weren't a candidate for president his name would never come up.

        •  If you think that's the case (13+ / 0-)

          Then I suspect  you have more invested in this discussion than you wish to admit.  

          It's not a logical extension of the discussion.  It's a weak attempt to distract from the hatefully racist commentary that was written under his name.  

          I challenge you to go and read the comments thread on a youtube video and count the number of times that the reporter is called a whore, bitch, slut, race baiter.  I challenge you to read through the comments thread and not get sickened at the number of times Paul supporters respond with comments that refer to global media ownership and Jews.  I challenge you to not get sick when you read that this group of people is still trying to argue about global financial domination and the Jewish people.  

          It's disgusting, and anyone who is willing to overlook such hateful language is the one who is choosing to ignore the reality.  

          The reality is that his followers don't give a shit about what was written, because they largely agree with what was written.  

          They have simply been trained to avoid using racist epithets and to instead make the only reasonable argument possible.  

          You've been duped.  

          The outcomes of a Paul presidency would be worse than a mainstream Republican presidency.  

          I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

          by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:50:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ron Paul is a racist. Ron Paul associates with (3+ / 0-)

      racists.  Ron Paul's biggest fans are racists.  Ron Paul opposes and has opposed every landmark civil rights law every passed in this country.  

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:04:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  in Romney's defense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When asked to sign on to Newt "jail the judges" policy, Romney gave a stirring defense of the notion of an independent judiciary as one of three co equal branches of government.  I was shocked to hear that a Republican might defend the constitution in this way and respect the limits of the Presidency in this one area.

      Of course, he's still the guy who went against his church hierarchy to drive out to a hospital to tell a mother of four she needed to die.  That's how I will always think of Romney, I'm afriad.

  •  Nice one, very well thought out.... (5+ / 0-)

    I can't think of one thing that Obama has done that could even be misrepresented as racist.  If anything, he's been the bigger person thru most of his political life in turning the other cheek when all the supremists, oops, mean Fox employees make demeaning comments about him....I guess he still doesn't know "his place".

    It seems like we don't even have to look too hard to find a multitude of racist things coming from Ron Paul.  It seems irrelevant if he's a racist or just panders to racists.  They're both inexcusable in my book (but then again, I've never been crazy enough to think of Ron Paul as a serious person or canidate in this race)

    •  The Paulite said "racist through his policies" (6+ / 0-)

      Not simply "racist".

      Obama stepped up the war on drugs, when he could have prevented federal agents from getting involved - especially when it comes to Medical Marijuana dispensaries.   Deportations have also been up.

      Obama didn't institute these policies, by he's certainly continuing them, and they both disproportionally affect minorities.

      •  Yes, this diarist seems to be tackling (7+ / 0-)

        one of those straw men type things.

        I doubt that Mr. Obama is personally racist, but that sure hasn't stopped him from ramping up a lot of incredibly racist policies . . . . (perhaps he simply hasn't thought thing through!)

      •  I live in Seattle (8+ / 0-)

        There were recently some dispensaries shut down by the feds.  

        I have been to two dispensaries.  One of them was closed, the other wasn't.  

        I think cannabis should be legal, but I don't think Obama would do anything about it in the first term.  He has also publicly spoken out against legalization.  But,  I could see him switching it to schedule II.  There has been a formal request sent by the governor here.  

        Here's the point- of the two dispensaries mentioned above, the one that was closed had these businesses going- a marijuna health spa, a marijuana club with dancing and music, and they were going to open a cafe as well.  Those were just the things that I could notice just as a patient.  The one that stayed open keeps their door bolted so you have to knock.  They require ID and Rx approval before you enter, and there is a room that is specifically for meds.  

        Clearly, one was not operating within the spirit of the medical marijuana law.  The US attorney actually made it clear that he wanted the dispensaries to be able to operate within the confines of the law.  

        So when you talk about dispensaries being closed, you have to at least acknowledge that the ones that are being closed are being closed because they are not operating within the intent of the state law itself, even though the feds could just close every dispensary down.  

        I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

        by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:21:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Most deportations (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, Deep Texan, Matt Z

        are of criminals sitting in private prisons that were built during the Bush years. Bush's ICE department would lock people up, sometimes entire families, in these prisons, and never give them an opportunity to get out and get home.
        Frankly, I'd rather the person be sent home than to pay for them to sit in prison here, wouldn't you?

        You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:08:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Racism: If it's worth doing, then do it right ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid, Matt Z, happymisanthropy


    The Earth's 23.44° axial tilt is "The Reason for the Season"

    by dmhlt 66 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:45:24 AM PST

  •  you cannot really argue with anyone (12+ / 0-)

    who claims the President is "racist".   when a right winger calls the President "racist" they are practicing Karl Rove politics - accuse your opponent of what you are doing then let him try to respond.  It is ludicrous.

  •  Enough with the hobbit (17+ / 0-)

    Back during the 2008 primary, I described Ron Paul to a political neophyte friend who found himself interested in Paul as "tiny atolls of perfect sanity surrounded by a roiling sea of crazy".

    I'm continually amazed that so many people miss the forest because there happens to be a few perfectly majestic trees....

    Hey - great - the guy recognizes the war on drugs is a largely foolish and failed endeavor with a much more sordid history than "law and order".  I've partaken with folks who say the same thing -- and I'm not voting for any of them for elected office, either.

    He likewise recognizes that rampant imperialism and foreign adventurism has historically had consequences and our military budget is unsustainable... Well, shit -- I suspect that out of the ~350K or so users here, ~345K of them can and do say the same friggin thing... and I might consider voting for many of them.

    Beyond that - Ron Paul is batshit, balls to the wall IN-FUCKING-SANE.   What is it about this nutso hobbit that causes so many people to miss that?

    I mean - do you really think a border fence is being designed to keep people from fleeing this country?  You don't have to go back 20 years to hear him say that.

    Regardless of military spending, do you think issuing privateer commissions might not be the best way to ensure safe travel and commerce on the world's oceans?  Again - you don't have to go back 20 years to hear him say that.

    As corrupt and mucked up as the banking system is - do you think we ought to eliminate currency, start hoarding freedom seeds and gold, and await the coming apocalypse in some fortified bunker?  Again - you don't have to back 20 years to get that flavor of hyper-nonsense from him.

    IN-FUCKING-SANE people.

    You know - the cliche "a stopped watch is right twice a day" is NOT intended as a sales pitch to buy broken timepieces.

    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

    by zonk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:54:59 AM PST

    •  This gets into a big picture question (8+ / 0-)

      is someone who is right for the wrong reasons right or wrong?  

      If Ron Paul and his merry men wish to support policies I support, that's entirely up to them.  But in the context of a Presidential campaign -- which is all that Ron Paul does, being a shitty Congressman -- the attributes of the individual matter a great deal, as do the reasons for holding the views he does.  Isolationism is not a good alternative either, and getting rid of (some of) the drug war as part of getting rid of most government services has a baby/bathwater component.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:04:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're wrong. Ron Paul's thought process is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        totally opposite of a progressive thought process.  So he is lucky once or twice to reach the right conclusion.  But 99% of the time his whacky thought process will lead him to extremely bad decisions that will hurt America.  Look at his full congressional voting record which scores at the bottom on pretty much every report card (NAACP, women's rights, LGBT, etc) that matters to us.

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:14:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hobbits would be appalled at being associated (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto, BruinKid, esquimaux, Matt Z, avsp, trumpeter, Debby

      with Ron Paul.  Paulites are much more Orc-like.

      #OccupyOMC - "We have a permit, its called The Constitution".

      by Evolutionary on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:04:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you think that's a little out of line? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby, BruinKid

      What did hobbits ever do to you to deserve the denigration you're heaping on them?

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:35:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's an individual racist (which makes it better) (10+ / 0-)

    I guess in the eyes of fauxbertarian, it does. But it really isn't much of an argument to say:

    BTW if all the pathetic people bashing on Ron Paul about this knew anything about libertarianism, they would know that we don't look at people as groups, but individuals.... the anti drug laws Obama enforces are far more racist than anything Ron could do.

    Which brings me to my next point. Technically this guy said the drug policies Obama enforces are far more racist than what Pres. Paul might do. While it might be an interesting debate about whether or not our drug laws are racist, this is a subject changing argument.

    Unless the President was presented w/ a bill changing our drug laws, he doesn't have much choice in our form of government. He is sworn to uphold the laws of the US. Now, he could direct AG Holder to make certain laws the lowest priority or not charge people specifically under those statutes but he can't unilaterally change the drug laws. DONT FLAME ME. I oppose Mandatory minimums and I think cannabis should be completely legal, taxed, and available to adults only. So don't try to paint me as a Paulista. I've been a member since 2006.

    Now the individual point is also a pointless non-argument. Take the real life Paul example of refusing to use the facilities of a gay supporter, but opting instead to use a public restroom (What medical school accepted such an moran (sic)?).

    Another example would be Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He defends racists w/ a stupid free market point that customers would have opted to avoid bigoted establishments. Yah that worked like a charm in the South and is the exact reason why you need laws like that.

    Supporting the President is treasonous? Count me in then.

  •  similar conversation (8+ / 0-)

    I have no doubt that they are making an intentional attempt to break liberal voters away from Obama.  They are doing this by talking about the drug war.

    Ron Paul is not a liberal.  His policies will lead only to outcomes that conservatives could want.  So regardless of how things are on one issue, the overall outcome of his policies will result in the deaths of people due to things like lack of health care, environmental degradation...

    I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

    by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:57:23 AM PST

  •  per the fox cartoon (6+ / 0-)

    David Frum hit it out of the park with his "it's terrible how these anti-semites keep misinterpreting Ron Paul."

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:01:15 AM PST

  •  "Lots of what he says makes sense" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid, otto, Deep Texan, Matt Z

    has to be put in the dictionary as the example of a backhanded compliment, given the negative pregnant.

    My wife says I couldn't have done it. And leave my wife out of this.

    by Inland on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:03:59 AM PST

  •  another problem with the way these (4+ / 0-)

    wingnuts "argue".

    The drug policies and the volunteer military also impact more  "white" people.  For someone to claim these are "racist" is for them to claim the very thing they claim they are opposed to - ethnic group membership being an issue.

    Wingnuts also "argue" that the President is a "racist" because he favors social spending and unemployment insurance extenstions.  This is ridiculous of course. There are far more white poor people and unemployed people than people of "minorities".  Yes the rates of povery and unemployment are higher for minorities but the absolute numbers tilt towards 'whites".  It is simple math, and of course these wingnuts have no use for facts, reality or mathematics.

  •  *yawn* - you both lose the argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matias, blue earth

    Both candidates are completely atrocious for different reasons and yet you are having a heated debate about which one sucks less while ignoring the faults of your own candidate.  Both of you, and the whole country, lose.

    •  You totally missed the point. (10+ / 0-)

      I'm trying to bat down this belief from these people that "Ron Paul will be the greatest President evar!!!!!!!"

      This is a diary focusing on Ron Paul's stated positions on the issues, because too many people seem to be woefully misinformed on what he's actually said and proposed.  I haven't ignored Obama's faults, it's just not the point of this diary.  You wanna write a diary about all his faults, go right ahead.

      And like it or not, the election is basically going to be a binary choice between two people (perhaps 3 if one of the right-wingers goes third party).  That's the system we've come to have.  You may think they're both "atrocious", but either Obama or one of the Republicans is going to win the Presidency in 2012.  Magical Pony who pees rainbows and shits gold isn't going to be on the ballot, I'm sorry to inform you.

      •  How about this argument? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, Matt Z, happymisanthropy

        Does it make sense to ask a Ron Paul fan to articulate any position on which they diverge from Paul?  

        I think these guys are cult followers or paid.  Either status would cause them to act the same way they are acting.  

        If they are cult followers, then they should be pissed that they aren't getting paid, because they are doing an awful lot of prostituting of  their ideas for a skinny man who walks with a limp in his suit.  

        Can they say where they disagree with Paul?  I would bet that they can't.  

        I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

        by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:38:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Considering Ron Paul supporters a homogeneous (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruinKid, Kurt Sperry, blue earth

          group is a major error.  Sure, there are a lot of true-believer libertarians in there.  There are also a lot of young people who are anti-war, anti-drug war, and anti-banker who have gravitated to Ron Paul because of the total failure of the Democratic party, and particularly Barack Obama.

          I have heard many people wish for a Ron Paul - Dennis Kucinich ticket.  Now that makes no sense if you analyze politics from a left v. right perspective, which emphasizes the error in doing so.  It makes perfect sense if you understand Paul supporters from an outsider v. establishment perspective.  Most of them are just desperate for that outsider candidate, and frankly aren't too dedicated to the libertarian economics.  

          Many seeming "libertarians" are just looking for an alternative, and could easily be persuaded of the merits of other alternatives, so long as you actually try to talk to them from a perspective of outsider v. establishment, instead of defending the establishment (Barack Obama).  It's a lot more productive than trying to turn it into a left v. right issue.

          •  Then ask them (4+ / 0-)

            Ask them where they diverge, because I have never seen a vocal Paul supporter discuss any position on which they part ways with Paul.  


            They are a cult, because they are about Paul, not about his ideas.  If Paul says it, then it must be okay.  

            I'm amazed that anyone thinks that the guy should be defended for what was said.  I'm more amazed that a good, vocal chunk of his followers agree with what was written.  

            As to your advice, that is true of any voting bloc, so I wouldn't think that says anything one way or the other.  

            The main question is this: where do they differ from him on policy?  

            I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

            by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:17:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, you have missed the point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB, Sparhawk, blue earth

        Ron Paul is so popular because of the utter failure of the Democratic Party to articulate an alternative to the pro-war pro-prison pro-bankster agenda.  By continuing to ignore these failures and defend Barack Obama, you merely strengthen the hand of the libertarian right.

        When a Ron Paul supporter says "Barack Obama is terrible!" the effective response is not "Ron Paul is worse!"  The effective response is to first acknowledge that Barack Obama is a complete and utter failure, before explaining why the root cause of all of these problems is corporate oligarchy, and how libertarianism not only fails to address corporate oligarchy but actually strengthens it.

        •  I thought I did address that... (5+ / 0-)

          by citing how Ron Paul would let corporations loose with the Citizens United ruling and lowering the corporate tax rate so they can make even more profits.

          I've had many conversations with this guy over the last couple years about all of Obama's shortcomings.  I just didn't write out all our previous conversations in this diary, because the topic at hand was his attempt at excusing Ron Paul's racist newsletters by trying to shift the topic to Obama.

        •  And where is your evidence that the reason (0+ / 0-)

          Paul is popular is because of the failure of the President and the Democratic Party to address the unpopular wars and preferential treatment to Wall Street?  It seems to me that Paul's popularity might just as easily be due to the increase of racial agitation due to the fact that we have our first AA President. That and the increase in right wing hate groups--all of whom are loving the stuff coming out of Paul's campaign and past. Even his position against the Patriot Act has more roots in white supremacist fear of the government coming and taking their hidden automatic weapons than it does about the unconstitutional racial profiling in impoverished areas.

          Paul's position on the wars and Wall Street don't seem to have the same intellectual base that his other anti-government policies do. At least not from a libertarian view. I wonder if he just throws those in to make his other more radical ideas palatable.  

  •  Who started the crappy "In which I . . . " (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid, dinazina, mim5677

    intros and titles? It really takes away from an otherwise quite readable diary.

    Whoever started that crap should be ashamed of themselves. And I really wish people would stop doing it.

    grrrrrrrr. Wednesdays are curmudgeonly days.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:26:06 AM PST

  •  Good effort but there's no fixing Stupid (6+ / 0-)

    In all my many years on the internet Ive never once seen someone in a political forum go: "Oh Wow thats great, I hadn't thought of that before and I've completely changed my mind."
    And I don't think its going to happen here either.

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:26:53 AM PST

    •  True... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto, Evolutionary, exlrrp, Matt Z, fou, trumpeter

      but my hope is that perhaps someone who hasn't paid that much attention to the candidates and hadn't really heard of Ron Paul before might see this, learn something about what Paul really believes, and run away screaming in sheer terror.

      I say this because it's happened to me before, where I was arguing with some right-wingers on a political forum.  Sure, their minds couldn't be changed even one iota, but I later had someone who only lurked on that thread thank me for providing a good argument he hadn't thought of before.

      We're political junkies here, but let's remember that most Americans don't pay all that much attention to this kind of stuff.  You'd be surprised how many Americans have only heard of Ron Paul because he was parodied on Saturday Night Live a few times.

      •  Thats why I T & R'd you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Ive had people thank me for stuff like that too and thats one of the reasons I think its worth doing.
        But in truth, I don't think Ron Paul has the proverbial snowball's chance, not even for VP because many of his views completely conflict with the Republican line so much (ex: abortion)
        I think he's currently just the Hail Mary version of Not Romney and that ardor for him will cool in a couple of weeks. I think he's the nuttiest one of them all and thats saying a WHOLE lot.
        Meanwhile, keep up the good work.

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:55:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the last couple days... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          with more and more media coverage of those racist newsletters, my fear that Paul could actually beat Obama if he became the nominee because of the bad economy has been assuaged somewhat.  :-)

          Though his abortion view is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the GOP.  Remember, he voted FOR banning all "partial birth" abortions a few years ago, which no true libertarian would do.

          And there's this good Nation piece on how his foreign policy views should NOT be welcomed by any real progressive.  Like I've been saying, he's not so much anti-war as he is an isolationist.  (Of course, he still voted for the original AUMF to go into Afghanistan.)

          •  He doesn't agree with my views! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If there's a random intersection with my beliefs  in a few places, its not as strong as the belief that he's nuttier than a freaking fruitcake. BUt I think much more important than that is that his other beliefs like foreign policy are way different than all but the nutcase fringe of a fairly looney party believe. I think the attraction is: "Not Romney But O God There's No One Left But Santorum!!" I could be wrong.
            But I also believe that he would go back on a lot of it to get the nomination. I don't think that will do it and out of all the Not Romneys so far He would have the most to go back on.  And thats saying a LOT also!
            When I say nuttiest one of them all I also mean most dangerous one of them all, so keep on keeping on!

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:39:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Racism Profiteer (7+ / 0-)

    that's what Paul is.

    "I don't hate black people, I just think it's great to make a buck from oppressing them".


    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:33:58 AM PST

    •  Here's why it's pointless to assert racism (5+ / 0-)

      In most cases, the immediate response is so predictable, that calling someone racist makes no sense.  

      They will simply turn it around to an org like NAACP or talk about affirmative action.  

      They've been monkey trained for years to believe in the magic of reverse racism.  

      I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

      by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:40:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles, otto, BruinKid, SouthernBelleNC49

        Just because bigots deny racism doesn't mean it shouldn't be asserted or called out.  Of course you're never going to change a racist's mind or get them to admit the obvious, but that doesn't mean you stop telling the truth.

        •  In some cases (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I realize that I really don't mean this in an all or nothing way.  

          In many cases, accusing someone of racism doesn't do anything other than play a move they want you to play.  

          For them, it's racist to notice racism.  

          In some cases, it's just pointless, and you have to go around the issue to a point that they can't deny.  

          I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

          by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:34:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand the game they play (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BruinKid, SouthernBelleNC49

            which is why I don't play it.  They play this game in order to get you to take that word off the table, which is why I refuse to.  I understand they'll deny it, accuse you of playing a card, say that you're leveling a false charge.  I just don't care.

  •  I agree 87%. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm not so sure about this part, however.

    (Note: If you say you "love" the Constitution, but simultaneously want to get rid of/eviscerate multiple Amendments to it, then no, you don't actually "love" the Constitution.  You instead love a fictionalized version of the Constitution, and not the actual document itself.)

    I'm not a fan of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and I'd be very happy if the Constitution had a few more amendments clarifying its position on personhood and limitations on Executive power.

    Is there a single person who thinks the exact current state of the document is 'perfect'?

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:52:05 AM PST

    •  Nevertheless it is what we have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruinKid, Matt Z

      It is like being married: I love my wife but realistically. You get what you get. Nobody is 'perfect'.

      An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

      by MichiganChet on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:02:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not the point. (3+ / 0-)

        The Constitution included an acknowledgement that it was not, and would never be, perfect.  The founders included a built-in method for revising it, achievable by either citizenry or the elected.  This was a historical first.

        Hell, the founders themselves wouldn't pass it initially unless the Bill of Rights went along with it, made up of.. you know.. CHANGES.

        Saying that no one loves the Constitution if they want to change it is synonymous with saying 'no one has ever or will ever love the Constitution'.  I disagree.

        "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

        by Wayward Son on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:47:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we're writing about different points (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          - And for the record, I agree with your less than absolute reverence for the second amendment; I am not real happy about the 18th, either. I mean this is the 3/5th of a person compromise document.

             Nevertheless, as bruinkid points out, that is not what is at stake here. The constitution itself, with its imperfections and changes is the supreme law of the land; if you don't like it (to take a page from the libertarian book) then move to Somalia. It should change, yes, to evolve with the times, just as you wear different clothes as you get bigger and more mature. What our political enemies preach is generally 'disregard the points of it you don't like, and never mind going through the process of making an amendment, we'll just stamp our little feet here and wave our gay little hats'. To me that denotes neither love nor respect.

          I took an oath to defend the constitution when I was in the army, so I have strong feelings about this.

          An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

          by MichiganChet on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:52:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Intentional humor? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You say that the Constitution should change to evolve with the times, but you also say that actually wanting it to change means you don't love or respect it.

            The sum of those two statements, taken literally, makes a darker conclusion than perhaps you'd enjoy hearing.

            "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

            by Wayward Son on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:00:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  change is one thing, evisceration is another (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              and intent is a third. Draw whatever conclusions you think relevant from the position and/or the comment. Our enemies don't want to merely change the constitution. They  want to defy it, ignore the points of it they don't like, and if we would speak of change, use it as a weapon against any change for the better in society. That is what I say still denotes neither love nor respect, despite their blather and dangling teabags.

              An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

              by MichiganChet on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:20:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Same here. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      I just don't go around proclaiming my "love" of the Constitution.  It's a great document, to be sure, but yeah, it's not perfect and never was.  It's a better document than it was 160 years ago, 100 years ago, etc.  Hopefully as the need arises, we can improve it even more.  I'm more noting the hypocrisy of these so-called "strict constructionists" who elevate the Constitution to some mythical demigod status, and yet also want to cleave out certain parts they don't like, like the federal income tax or birthright citizenship.

      It just feels like the people who say they "love" the Constitution are the ones who think "freedom" and "liberty" are the solutions to everything, and wear the American flag as a shirt, which always seemed a little tacky to me.  Plus, it felt like they were overcompensating for something.  Basically, whenever I hear someone say they "love" the Constitution, I immediately picture someone wearing a tri-cornered hat with teabags hanging from it.

  •  Way to go, BruinKid. (7+ / 0-)

    Great takedown of the Paulistas.

    I'm EAGER to act to rid the site of anyone that even skirts the line into racism. kos

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:59:42 AM PST

  •  Also lets not forget (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid, Matt Z, Miggles

    This clueless racist old fuckstick's plan to abolish the federal reserve:

    Read it here

    One could write an extensive diary of why this position is wrong, simpleminded and would cause economic disaster, but I shall here only note that the Fed was created precisely in response to former economic panics (which took place while the U.S was on the gold standard) and I do not know of any serious economist who endorses this position. Anyone here like breadlines?

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:10:36 AM PST

  •  I love, love (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, BruinKid, Matt Z

    the video and will be showing it to my high school government class. Very good diary, thanks!

  •  All of a sudden it's the "Racist War on Drugs." (9+ / 0-)

    It's been going on for 30 years, with cheerleading mostly from the right.

    Now that a black Dem. is President, suddenly it's a "racist war on drugs."

    You have to give them credit for creativity in their own racist attempts to deflect racism.  One might call it the "audacity of dope."

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:19:51 AM PST

  •  Wow. Great diary... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BruinKid, happymisanthropy

    ...and love Jay Smooth's comparison of racism to a guy who stole your wallet.  You just want to get your wallet back, you don't want to delve into the psychology of whether or not he's a thief at heart!  Great analogy.

    God hates FAQs, so stop asking why bad things happen to good people!

    by CoolOnion on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:43:34 AM PST

  •  What I don't understand... (5+ / 0-) how these politicians can be confronted with printed material with their names all over it and still claim that they didn't write the stuff!

    God hates FAQs, so stop asking why bad things happen to good people!

    by CoolOnion on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:48:55 AM PST

    •  Even when they were cashing checks from the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruinKid, CoolOnion

      profits of said racist publications.  I'm still waiting for Ron Paul to turn over the proceeds of his neo-confederate, racist publication over to a non-profit civil rights organization as means of apology.   Until then, Ron Paul remains a racist.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:22:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Newt had a classic yesterday along these lines (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruinKid, CoolOnion

      When confronted with his pro healthcare mandate and pro Romney care "Newt's Notes" he tried to disown them, on the very same day he attacked Ron Paul over the newsletters.  It was two for one sale of hypocricy !!!

  •  One day, the RP fans will join the reality-based (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    community. One could only hope.

  •  Ron Paul is a racist. (4+ / 0-)

    Anyone who would put their name on that bile is racist, so I don't really understand why you don't just say that, or think that it's a losing argument to claim the obvious.

    Even Paul knows that anyone who knowingly wrote or put their name on that crap is a racist, which is why he's "denying" any knowledge of it now.

    Even Paul knows he's racist, so I don't see the sense in denying it or stepping around it.

  •  Thank you for this. Some I knew and some I didn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, BruinKid

    I have watched Paul answer questions in various interviews and had already decided he was more or less off his rocker but this helps to put into perspective the attitudes of the folks I know that so fervently support him.  I'll keep them in the handle with care category just like I do those that tell me how much they admire the Tea Party.

  •  When you roll around in pig shit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, esquimaux, BruinKid

    It doesn't matter if you "disavow" the stench.

  •  racism is promoting wars & keeping colonies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    racism is: promoting wars (how many? i lost count), selling arms to third world countries & keeping nations under colonial regimes labeled  'unincorporated territories' and having indian reservations in the 21st century.
    another Ron Paul diary? seems like he is the front runner now.

    •  People don't want to think about that. This (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      country is founded on racism and it's actions have been nothing but since it's inception.  Look at what western imperialists have done to Africa and South America, and now the Middle East.
      Ron Paul may be a racist, but we all have blood on our hands for our country's racist foreign policies.  

    •  Nope, that's not what it means (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There were plenty of Ron Paul diaries in the last election.  

      It has nothing to do with that, so fantasies of winning the nomination should be kept on the fictional list.  

      I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

      by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:45:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't it swell (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, esquimaux, BruinKid

    how the purity of one's belief in Liberty completely insulates them from any moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

    My libertarianism is so pure, I can't be a racist.  I'm the opposite of racist.  

    If you don't watch out, your job will become one Americans won't do.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:54:31 AM PST

  •  Rand Paul - Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    describe themselves as conservative constitutional Libertarians

    they are radical Libertarian constitutionalists

    If You Don't Like The Way Things Are Now - JUST WAIT - 2012 GOP favored to win control of Senate

    by anyname on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:57:35 AM PST

  •  I must have my head in the sand... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Kurt Sperry

    cause I really have a hard time pinning the racist label on this guy.  I've been trying to do just that and I feel it would be morally wrong for me to say he is a racist because of these news letters.  I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't catch him on tape saying things like this.

    What we have is a series of non-denials actually one from a tape from damn near 20 years ago.  

    A racist person lets it slip every once in a while, they just do and if 20 years ago is the closest we can come to it, without a direct quote from Paul himself, I can't go down that road.  

    I've heard some pretty indefensible things here that were met with charges of playing the race card, so to be so convinced of a loose relationship nearly 20 years old leads me to believe the the racism is only a tool to avoid policy discussions.  

    Give me a quote within the past 10 years from Paul himself, otherwise this is all kind of weak.  You can only tell the same story so many ways.

    Yall are believin' your own BS right now.

    by mim5677 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:38:04 AM PST

    •  Why isn't the stuff in the newsletters enough? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joelado, bluegrass50, BruinKid

      How can you act like that stuff doesn't matter?  

      The man was at least 50 years old when that was published under his name.  

      I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

      by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:46:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that it doesn't matter... (0+ / 0-)

        the problem is that the newsletters are the only thing around and it has been accepted that he didn't write them.  Not to mention that there is no recording what so ever of him actually saying these things.  

        He gave a speech to normal around the same time that mentioned the negative affects of racism on drug policy, so that should matter too.  

        I personally need to hear him say something, meaning I believe that if he was a racist, it would be on tape and not just speculation.  The guy has been in public office for decades, they would have something on him, if it was really there.  Everything I've heard him say has been pretty consistent and none of it was racist.

        Yall are believin' your own BS right now.

        by mim5677 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:40:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are articles (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He has already verified the statements in previous articles.  

          He has never said who wrote the words, and he's never said he held anyone accountable.

          His racism is the kind that is concealed by pleas to liberty.

          I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

          by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:57:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it's concealed (0+ / 0-)

            that means you can't really prove it and that is my personal threshold for labeling someone a racist.

            In this place that threshold moves based on political allegiance.

            Yall are believin' your own BS right now.

            by mim5677 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:25:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              I think that people are rightly condemned for racist commentary, and you will find plenty of people who make the same commentary you are making about whomever it is.  

              It's difficult to "prove" racism.  It's difficult, because it relies on someone telling you that they are, indeed, racist.  

              Additionally, the racist is someone who has changed the value of the word "racism," because it is required in order to convince oneself that you are not racist, even though it may appear so on the surface.  

              I wouldn't sidetrack the discussion with something that has to do with this place, because the discussion is about whether Ron Paul is a racist, not whether or not people here condone racism in certain situations.  

              And the answer to the last proposal is and emphatic "yes." There are plenty of people here who will downplay racism.  That, however, does not change whether or not someone allows outrageously racist language to be published under their own name.  

              Think about it like this:  If someone was unable to recognize the language as racist, don't they perhaps have a problem with either tacit acceptance of racism, or with being so unaware of appropriate language regarding race that they can't be trusted to act fairly?  

              I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

              by otto on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:13:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  If not written by him (0+ / 0-)

          then they were written by somebody close to him.

          He is a racist piece of shit because of his associations with racists.  He also hates Israel and called it an apartheid state.

    •  I Mostly Agree But (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Paul's having recently said he believes that private businesses have the right to racially discriminate is to me at the very best a conscious enablement of racism and he will attract a lot of racist followers with that sort of argument. Followers I don't recall hearing him loudly disavowing.  

      Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

      by Kurt Sperry on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:33:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought that was his son (0+ / 0-)

        I can imagine they both agree, but again he's not saying white businesses can discriminate against blacks, he's saying all businesses can discriminate how they want if they are private.

        That's not racism that is just bad  policy.  See the difference?

        Yall are believin' your own BS right now.

        by mim5677 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:42:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good job! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I might use it, if you don't mind.  I have a few Paul fanatics on Facebook too, unfortunately...

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:44:48 AM PST

  •  Wow. You do a lot more than transcribe and analyze (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ekyprogressive, BruinKid

    Stewart and Colbert!

    This is an amazing diary.  Thanks for all the links and excellent information.  We'll need it, I think.

  •  Most excellent, Kid. (3+ / 0-)

    That's an excellent standby quote from MB-- you'll seldom go wrong there...

    Peace & love,

  •  Buahahaha! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I LOVE it! Excellent job, tipped, rec'd, liked and tweeted! I agree this needs to go viral!

  •  Agree with all you said, but another point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is that RON PAUL IS NOT LIBERTARIAN!  He's jumped on every right wing nutjob action that puts great big giant government right inside your underpants.  And that's not libertarian.

    "If you go all day without hitting or biting anyone, it was a good day." Patrick, age 4

    by Meggie on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:44:14 PM PST

  •  Take responsibility, Paul! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    perhaps this has been said.

    Paul was responsible for the publication of those newsletters in his name, and to his profit.  He needs to accept that responsibility.

    I don't know, or care, whether he wrote them, or knows who wrote them.  They went out over his signature, in his newsletter, and he made financial profit from them.  They are his responsibility.

    He needs to stop ducking that.

    You cannot evict an idea whose time has come.

    by rsmpdx on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:55:34 PM PST

  •  Paul is a despicable, amoral sleazebag... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A case in point is this story from TPM:

    Ron Paul has faced a torrent of criticism in recent weeks over newsletters printed in his name during the 1980s and 1990s which contained racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic content. He is also on the hook for accepting the support of fringe right-wing groups. While Paul dismisses these concerns, his campaign seems to have no problem working with and enjoying the support of anti-gay extremists, including one supporter who has called for the implementation of the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

    Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

    “Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”

    Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.

    “Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

  •  A weak argument made weaker... (0+ / 0-)

    Yall are believin' your own BS right now.

    by mim5677 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:16:45 AM PST

Meteor Blades, Sharoney, JekyllnHyde, tundraman, zonk, daninoah, TechBob, Shockwave, Jay C, Troutfishing, celdd, freelunch, frisco, Walt starr, Bruce The Moose, rasbobbo, missLotus, kalihikane, sja, ask, CoolOnion, Bionic, otto, roses, splashy, Cedwyn, danthrax, Dallasdoc, Dr Colossus, MariaSquared, ccr4nine, DSC on the Plateau, Dood Abides, exlrrp, JayBat, zerelda, glattonfolly, Curt Matlock, Kitsap River, randallt, tomjones, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Black Max, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, Ckntfld, ichibon, blueyedace2, Chinton, Technowitch, PBen, one of 8, Laurence Lewis, eru, farmerchuck, Viceroy, aaraujo, Inland, blue jersey mom, Steve in Urbana, markdd, rb608, Floja Roja, FindingMyVoice, Rogneid, begone, alrdouglas, Nowhere Man, occams hatchet, poco, esquimaux, Nance, Debbie in ME, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, BlueInARedState, Themistoclea, Kimball Cross, kestrel9000, AoT, fou, Lefty Coaster, happy camper, Up to here, middleagedhousewife, bajadudes, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, joelado, Brunette, Hedwig, Nulwee, cpresley, DBunn, Thinking Fella, clinging to hope, Habitat Vic, ColoTim, edsbrooklyn, Matt Z, bluehen96, millwood, jfranks, leonard145b, crystalboy, M Sullivan, Empower Ink, MKinTN, Corporate Dog, shanay, skohayes, lineatus, royce, pamelabrown, J V Calin, makettle, DanceHallKing, psilocynic, ekyprogressive, dmhlt 66, Diogenes2008, kpbuick, legendmn, LaFeminista, maggiejean, lancecote, prettygirlxoxoxo, bluemoonfever, Fogiv, Dirtandiron, Partisan Progressive, FrugalGranny, virginwoolf, Leslie in KY, hyper, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Keith Pickering, MichiganChet, stevenwag, Little Flower, Livvy5, Railfan, MT in Austin, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, smileycreek, RhymesWithUrple, Laurilei, FogCityJohn, TFinSF, Vacationland, estreya, gramofsam1, jethrock, Crabby Abbey, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, Eddie L, BoxNDox, Arenosa, ItsSimpleSimon, DiegoUK, elengul, ericlewis0, skindig55, debk, science nerd, nosleep4u, JanG, annieli, redlum jak, Miniaussiefan, sostos, boriscleto, La Gitane, Radiogabs, kevin k, ca union goon, trumpeter, Haf2Read, zukesgirl64, grannysally, BarackStarObama, beka, KVoimakas, Vatexia, Miggles, stlsophos, leftykook, googie, Chitown Kev, aerie star, Loge, MichaelNY, allergywoman, jacey, weatherdude, GenXangster, papa monzano, James Allen, TheLizardKing, Mindful Nature, Eric Nelson, S F Hippie, AnnieR, Joieau, Deep Texan, Trotskyrepublican, Evolutionary, oldflowerchild, MartyM, doroma, cuphalffull, avsp, Artandscience, Marjmar, Lizabet, International Progressive, The grouch, SuzieQ4624

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site