NationStates Jolt Archive

The story here. (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/)

For those unfamiliar with Black, he's a neo-Nazi asshat who runs the site Stormfront, which is an online Shangri-La for KKKers, Nazis, Christian Identity, and other racist scum.

All I can say is, unless Paul returns the money, burns it, or gives it away (preferrably to an anti-racist organization :D), he has lost my vote.

What have I been saying since day one of the Paul campaign? If it's asociated with racists, panders to racists, and has a history of racist statements, it's a racist.

To be fair, I highly doubt that any candidate does background checks on their donors.

I'm sure Mr. Paul will seperate himself from this very soon.

A very ironic name, has Mr. Black.

To be fair, I highly doubt that any candidate does background checks on their donors.

I'm sure Mr. Paul will seperate himself from this very soon.

I'd note that the Obama camp has done an excellent job of finding and returning lobbyist donations. Surely Raging Ronny could do the same.

I'd note that the Obama camp has done an excellent job of finding and returning lobbyist donations. Surely Raging Ronny could do the same.

I sure hope so. If not, as I said, he'll lose at least one would-be vote (mine).

I'd note that the Obama camp has done an excellent job of finding and returning lobbyist donations. Surely Raging Ronny could do the same.

And he probably will now. Remember, Obama built his campaign on grassroots, anti-PAC and lobbyist finances. Not taking money from certain people/organizations isn't a problem for other candidates, especially those that have smaller warchests then the frontrunners.

I sure hope so. If not, as I said, he'll lose at least one would-be vote (mine).

You mean his "ghostwritten" racist statements are not bad enough? His long standing connections to racist organizations?

You mean his "ghostwritten" racist statements are not bad enough?

His ghostwritten statements are just that, ghostwritten.

His long standing connections to racist organizations?

Proof?

Proof?



http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721

Pretty much...

Hes written quite a bit of things that have been labeled as "racist" by the left and right.

His ghostwritten statements are just that, ghostwritten.

So he claims. I see no reason to beleive him. Moreover, even if they were, that doesn't forgive him rubberstamping them in his name, and not even bothering to retract the statements for 7 years thereafter.

Proof?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459

Yes, it's a blog. It's also cited fully.

So he claims. I see no reason to beleive him. Moreover, even if they were, that doesn't forgive him rubberstamping them in his name, and not even bothering to retract the statements for 7 years thereafter.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459

Yes, it's a blog. It's also cited fully.

heres the quote:

Getting much attention: A 1996 Houston Chronicle story that says a newsletter Paul published in the early 1990s "highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues." That newsletter was called the Ron Paul Political Report, and according to Kos, Paul told Texas Monthly magazine in October 2001 that "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” Kos points out, though, that the newsletter was eight pages long and "whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents."

What have I been saying since day one of the Paul campaign? If it's asociated with racists, panders to racists, and has a history of racist statements, it's a racist.

Add christian nutters and morons(rudy seems to be aiming for them) and it'll be a typical republican campaign

So he claims. I see no reason to beleive him.

I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, even if they were, that doesn't forgive him rubberstamping them in his name, and not even bothering to retract the statements for 7 years thereafter.

Fair enough.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459

Yes, it's a blog. It's also cited fully.

Thanks.

Ron Paul, a former 'libertarian' and other wackos are part of the reason why I never voted Libertarian despite my lenings toward doing so. For some reason, the Libertarian Party almost always nominates the most questionable member of their party. Maybe that's part of their plan. ;)

Ron Paul, a former 'libertarian' and other wackos are part of the reason why I never voted Libertarian despite my lenings toward doing so. For some reason, the Libertarian Party almost always nominates the most questionable member of their party. Maybe that's part of their plan. ;)

You should get them to nominate you. The most questionable of the lot :p

You should get them to nominate you. The most questionable of the lot :p

My god! I'm perfect! :)

My god! I'm perfect! :)

Are you at least thirty-five years of age and are a naturally born citizen of the United States?

Are you at least thirty-five years of age and are a naturally born citizen of the United States?
You also have to have lived in the US for a while.

That and the age restriction are the only things keeping me from trying to run. ;)

Are you at least thirty-five years of age and are a naturally born citizen of the United States?

34. :(

You also have to have lived in the US for a while.

That and the age restriction are the only things keeping me from trying to run. ;)

Oh, yes, the fourteen years bit. I knew I was forgetting something.

34. :(

Sorry, but not this time. In 2012 though...

...

YAY FOR IRONY! :D

Sorry, but not this time. In 2012 though...

...

YAY FOR IRONY! :D

One of those happy coincidences. ;)

To be fair, I highly doubt that any candidate does background checks on their donors.

I'm sure Mr. Paul will seperate himself from this very soon.

Why would he? His own past reveals pretty racist attitudes, and he's willfully pandered to groups like Stormfront before.

Is RonPaul that really tall transvestite?

Is RonPaul that really tall transvestite?

Yes. Shhh.... Nobody is supposed to know until the election is over. *nod*

Why would he? His own past reveals pretty racist attitudes, and he's willfully pandered to groups like Stormfront before.

Because it's bad publicity. If his campaign manager doesn't tell him to get rid of the tainted money ASAP, he deserves to be fired.

For those unfamiliar with Black, he's a neo-Nazi asshat who runs the site Stormfront, which is an online Shangri-La for KKKers, Nazis, Christian Identity, and other racist scum

All I can say is, unless Paul returns the money, burns it, or gives it away (preferrably to an anti-racist organization :D), he has lost my vote.

And his name is Black? How hilarious. :p

Because it's bad publicity. If his campaign manager doesn't tell him to get rid of the tainted money ASAP, he deserves to be fired.

But Paul is supposed to be the "different" candidate, isn't he? He's supposed to be a man of principles who doesn't care what other people think and will stick to his guns no matter what? Isn't that his big campaign trail lie? Well, that and the "I'm the defender of the Constitution" BS.

But Paul is supposed to be the "different" candidate, isn't he? He's supposed to be a man of principles who doesn't care what other people think and will stick to his guns no matter what? Isn't that his big campaign trail lie? Well, that and the "I'm the defender of the Constitution" BS.

If you are not going to respond seriously, I have nothing more to add.

If you are not going to respond seriously, I have nothing more to add.

I am responding seriously. Any time I talk to a Ron Paul supporter, they have him up on a pedestal a mile high - and he seems to want them to put him there. He's supposed to be less of a politician and more of an honest guy who doesn't care what anyone thinks as long as he's upholding the constitution.

Of course, anyone who looks at his record knows it's BS, but that's the way he's running his campaign. If he's supposed to be a non-politician, why would he run his campaign on an "Oops, this is bad publicity so I'm going to return this contribution even if I agree with the person who made it," policy?

Do these guys honestly look to see where all the money they receive comes from? I mean, I know if someone donated like $20,000 or something, but $500? I think they have better things to do. Anyway, who cares...just cuz this tool supports Ron Paul does not mean Ron Paul supports Nazism or whatever this guy is. (KKK or whatever)....I mean come on, people. :rolleyes:

Not even the news stations/sources which are sooo biased against Ron Paul (both Neo-Con and Left-Wing) have gone to call hima raicst or Nazi or KKK appeaser or whatever.....leave it to the loony-left at NSG using blogs as their proof.:rolleyes:

The story here. (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/)

For those unfamiliar with Black, he's a neo-Nazi asshat who runs the site Stormfront, which is an online Shangri-La for KKKers, Nazis, Christian Identity, and other racist scum.

All I can say is, unless Paul returns the money, burns it, or gives it away (preferrably to an anti-racist organization :D), he has lost my vote.

And this proves why I will not be voting for Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination.

Do these guys honestly look to see where all the money they receive comes from? I mean, I know if someone donated like $20,000 or something, but $500? I think they have better things to do. Anyway, who cares...just cuz this tool supports Ron Paul does not mean Ron Paul supports Nazism or whatever this guy is. (KKK or whatever)....I mean come on, people. :rolleyes:

Not even the news stations/sources which are sooo biased against Ron Paul (both Neo-Con and Left-Wing) have gone to call hima raicst or Nazi or KKK appeaser or whatever.....leave it to the loony-left at NSG using blogs as their proof.:rolleyes:

Still, if I were to be one of the hopefuls for president, I would most definitely try to distance myself as far away from any racist group. Send them a letter stating "Thank you for your donation, but the check will not be cashed. Instead, it shall be burned clean in the pits of hell. Thanks, but don't send me anything else."

Still, if I were to be one of the hopefuls for president, I would most definitely try to distance myself as far away from any racist group. Send them a letter stating "Thank you for your donation, but the check will not be cashed. Instead, it shall be burned clean in the pits of hell. Thanks, but don't send me anything else."

It's still a blog though, a blog doesn't have the same accountability that an organization like AP or CNN has. Anyone can start a blog and write crap in it.

Sorry, but until an official news source get the story, the story itself will be questionable.

As for $500, whoo, wow, $500, I guess Ron Paul can buy gas for his big campaign van then, or buy airline tickets to the next debate. Give me a break.

Am I the only one silly enough to think of this Stormfront (http://stormfront.com/)? ;) (the link is safe). Seriously... when I was reading the OP, I was thinking for a minute of this one and not the racist one. Heh.

As for $500, whoo, wow, $500, I guess Ron Paul can buy gas for his big campaign van then, or buy airline tickets to the next debate. Give me a break.
So, assuming the donation happened as described, a small help from white supremacists is fine?

At what level does moral indignation kick in? $1000? $5000?

So, assuming the donation happened as described, a small help from white supremacists is fine?

At what level does moral indignation kick in? $1000? $5000?

Just because an organization donates to someone's campaign fund doesn't mean that the candidate support that organization.

Just because an organization donates to someone's campaign fund doesn't mean that the candidate support that organization.

If they took money from it and do not give it back it does.

Just because an organization donates to someone's campaign fund doesn't mean that the candidate support that organization.

Let him keep the donations. Just means that the attack ads will have something to lock on to. God knows if Obama took money from say, members of the Holy Land Foundation the Republican Noise Machine would harp on that as proof of him being Bin Ladin's Manchurian Candidate.

"Now when I say 'Hello Mr. Thompson' and press down on your foot, you smile and nod."

"Hello Mr. Thompson." *stomp stomp stomp*

"Who is Mr. Black?"

Just because an organization donates to someone’s campaign fund doesn’t mean that the candidate support that organization.
It means the candidate is willing, at the very least, not to view the money as ‘dirty’.

He may not agree with Don Black 100%, but if he doesn’t return the cash, then Paul is admitting he views the man as an acceptable form of funding.

Now when I say "Hello Mr. Thompson" and press down on your foot, you smile and nod.

"Hello Mr. Thompson." *stomp stomp stomp*
*talks in quiet voice*

I think he's talking to you. :)

I'm wondering why Black would send Paul money without doing more to hide his identity.. hide any connection to himself in the first place. Certainly he isn't so stupid to think a link to his wife .. David Dukes ex wife wouldn't be found out and cause some big fiasco and hurt Paul. It's as if he doesn't want Paul to get elected. And $500 lousy dollars? That looks even more fishy to me. Maybe Black was just looking for some publicity for Stormfront. Either way .. whoever does the background checks for Paul needs to be fired.

Do these guys honestly look to see where all the money they receive comes from? I mean, I know if someone donated like $20,000 or something, but $500? I think they have better things to do. Anyway, who cares...just cuz this tool supports Ron Paul does not mean Ron Paul supports Nazism or whatever this guy is. (KKK or whatever)....I mean come on, people. :rolleyes:

Not even the news stations/sources which are sooo biased against Ron Paul (both Neo-Con and Left-Wing) have gone to call hima raicst or Nazi or KKK appeaser or whatever.....leave it to the loony-left at NSG using blogs as their proof.:rolleyes:
Of course. We're so loony our eyes are rolling all the time! Aguhuhuhuhu! :rolleyes:

Just because an organization donates to someone's campaign fund doesn't mean that the candidate support that organization.

correct, just because an organization donates to a campaign doesn't mean that the candidate supports the organization.

accepting the donation on the other hand...

correct, just because an organization donates to a campaign doesn't mean that the candidate supports the organization.

accepting the donation on the other hand...

You know, I would not be surprised if Ron Paul's campaign isn't fully aware of who donated the money. Ron Paul might be nuts with his crazy views and racist beliefs but he's not without cleverness, nor would he miss something like this. In this day and age accepting a campaign donation from a place like Stormfront is asking for trouble in one's campaign.

And I just want people to think about that for a minute, and consider just how wonderful that really is. Forty years ago such a campaign donation wouldn't even be a subject of discussion. Fifty years ago such a campaign donation would've been APPROVED OF by a large percentage of the population. Sixty years ago people would've gladly given to such organizations so they could donate!

We've advanced, and I like it.

correct, just because an organization donates to a campaign doesn't mean that the candidate supports the organization.

accepting the donation on the other hand...

Hear Ye Hear Ye NSG!

I being a somewhat sane supporter of Ron Paul hearby declare that Mr. Paul will give the $500 back to Mr. Black in due time. If he does not, then I will withdraw my support for Mr. Paul.

That is all.

You know, I would not be surprised if Ron Paul's campaign isn't fully aware of who donated the money. Ron Paul might be nuts with his crazy views and racist beliefs but he's not without cleverness, nor would he miss something like this. In this day and age accepting a campaign donation from a place like Stormfront is asking for trouble in one's campaign.

And I just want people to think about that for a minute, and consider just how wonderful that really is. Forty years ago such a campaign donation wouldn't even be a subject of discussion. Fifty years ago such a campaign donation would've been APPROVED OF by a large percentage of the population. Sixty years ago people would've gladly given to such organizations so they could donate!

We've advanced, and I like it.

Why would Ron Paul care, though? He thinks only 5% of black people have sensible political opinions, that the black community is barbaric, and that black youths should be treated more harshly by the law than white ones.

You'd think he'd be all for getting a contribution from Stormfront.

Hear Ye Hear Ye NSG!

I being a somewhat sane supporter of Ron Paul hearby declare that Mr. Paul will give the $500 back to Mr. Black in due time. If he does not, then I will withdraw my support for Mr. Paul.

That is all.
Oooh. Added incentive. :D

Why would Ron Paul care, though? He thinks only 5% of black people have sensible political opinions, that the black community is barbaric, and that black youths should be treated more harshly by the law than white ones.

You'd think he'd be all for getting a contribution from Stormfront.

Because Ron Paul, despite his personal opinions, is seeking the office of the President, and he knows that he can't get away with only courting the white racist vote, especially as a Republican. Maybe forty years ago, but not today.

I don't blame the Paul campaign for accepting the donation because, as pointed out, how adequately can we expect a campaign to screen a $500 donation. The cost associated with checking out every small donation would in effect cost them money.

I am fully prepared to accept that he just did not, and could not reasonably know where it came from. I however will be quite critical of the campaign should they decide to keep the money.

Do these guys honestly look to see where all the money they receive comes from? I mean, I know if someone donated like $20,000 or something, but $500? I think they have better things to do. Anyway, who cares...just cuz this tool supports Ron Paul does not mean Ron Paul supports Nazism or whatever this guy is. (KKK or whatever)....I mean come on, people. :rolleyes:

Not even the news stations/sources which are sooo biased against Ron Paul (both Neo-Con and Left-Wing) have gone to call hima raicst or Nazi or KKK appeaser or whatever.....leave it to the loony-left at NSG using blogs as their proof.:rolleyes:

Not only is Ron Paul apparently the preferred candidate of neo-Nazis, but he's also got the official endorsement of many theocrats from the religious-right. Doesn't this worry you at all?

Because Ron Paul, despite his personal opinions, is seeking the office of the President, and he knows that he can't get away with only courting the white racist vote, especially as a Republican. Maybe forty years ago, but not today.

So he's not the man of principle he's made out to be?

*mock surprise*

Not only is Ron Paul apparently the preferred candidate of neo-Nazis, but he's also got the official endorsement of many theocrats from the religious-right. Doesn't this worry you at all?

Are you kidding? This is Atlantian Islands we're talking about. He probably thinks that shines a very good light on Paul's campaign.

So he's not the man of principle he's made out to be?

*mock surprise*

Of course not.

Not only is Ron Paul apparently the preferred candidate of neo-Nazis, but he's also got the official endorsement of many theocrats from the religious-right. Doesn't this worry you at all?
1. I've yet to see him win over the religious-right....? Source?

2. Perhaps he stands to win over so many neo-nazis, is because one of their stances is immigration, which Ron Paul currently has a very tough stance on, as far as presidential candidates go. Does this make Ron Paul a Nazi, or simply someone who understands the problems and issues with immigration and border security?:rolleyes:
Are you kidding? This is Atlantian Islands we're talking about. He probably thinks that shines a very good light on Paul's campaign.
Heh, pathetic. Labelling me as a neo-nazi and/or a religous-right guy, neither of which I actually am.

Heh, pathetic. Labelling me as a neo-nazi and/or a religous-right guy, neither of which I actually am.

You're right. I apologize. You're simply extremely bigoted rather than actually being a Neo-Nazi.

1. I've yet to see him win over the religious-right....? Source?

Is Ron Paul a Dominionist?

I've been mulling this over lately and doing some research on it. I know that Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean much; the Christian reconstructionists call themselves that too and far too many of them are supporting Paul's candidacy to make me comfortable. I haven't found any direct evidence that Paul is among them, but here's some indirect evidence.

Michael Peroutka, the former Constitution Party candidate for president and a genuine theocrat, has endorsed Paul. In doing so, he uses exactly the kind of language that the fake "Christian libertarians" often use:

Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.

Now that, by itself, is not evidence of anything. There are genuine Christian libertarians, like my friend Jim Babka, who would make similar statements. It's a statement that real Christian libertarians and theocrats posing as libertarians would make so it doesn't really help us understand which of those things Paul would be.

More telling, possibly, are his close ties to the latter group. Gary North, one of the most dogmatic and barbaric of the Christian reconstructionists, was on Paul's Congressional staff at one point and North is supporting his candidacy as well. This is quite disturbing to me. It's not as though North's views could possibly have been a mystery to Paul. This is the man who has declared:

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

And yes, I have the original of the article and the quote is absolutely accurate and in context. North is an enthusiastic advocate of public stoning for everything from homosexuality to blasphemy. He has no place anywhere near political power and to put him on one's staff sends up a huge red flag to me.

It's also a bit disturbing to see Paul make statements like this:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Exactly the sort of rhetoric we hear constantly from the religious right (though, ironically, it completely disagrees with Gary North, who argues the opposite of most reconstructionists and says that the Constitution was a satanic plot to destroy Christian government). The fact that he completely ignores the 14th amendment isn't exactly comforting either. He is also stridently anti-abortion and opposes gay marriage.

But again, not necessarily conclusive. The statement, in context, is also consistent with a moderate, reasonable accommodationist position of the Washington/Adams variety. So my conclusion at this point is maybe. I'd be curious to hear other's opinions on that and any other evidence anyone has seen either way.

From here (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/is_ron_paul_a_dominionist.php)

Excuse me, RLI, but could you please cite a reputable source rather than a blog?

Excuse me, RLI, but could you please cite a reputable source rather than a blog?
A blog it may be, but as blogs go, this one’s pretty alright.

I agree that I’d like to see a better source, but at least the above cites most of his info, etc.

A blog it may be, but as blogs go, this one’s pretty alright.

I agree that I’d like to see a better source, but at least the above cites most of his info, etc.

Yes, he does, and I don't necessarily doubt the information. I just want to make sure it's accurate, that's all, and plus I know Atlantian Islands will never accept a blog that doesn't agree with him despite using blogs as sources on countless occasions when they do agree with him.

Excuse me, RLI, but could you please cite a reputable source rather than a blog?

The blog itself includes links to demonstrate the support of theocrats for Ron Paul; I didn't copy them into my post but if you follow the link at the bottom you can check them yourself.

The blog itself includes links to demonstrate the support of theocrats for Ron Paul; I didn't copy them into my post but if you follow the link at the bottom you can check them yourself.

Yes, he does, but Lew Rockwell is an opinion site and I don't know whether to trust "The American View" or not, since it is also a blog.

Yes, he does, and I don’t necessarily doubt the information. I just want to make sure it’s accurate, that’s all, and plus I know Atlantian Islands will never accept a blog that doesn’t agree with him despite using blogs as sources on countless occasions when they do agree with him.
Quite true.

Yes, he does, but Lew Rockwell is an opinion site and I don't know whether to trust "The American View" or not, since it is also a blog.

I'm afraid I honestly don't understand what your problem is. Yes, they are opinion pieces and blogs, but they are opinion pieces and blogs written by the people in question. If you want to find out who Michael Peroutka and Gary North are endorsing then what better source is there than their own words?

Much as I think of RP as a toad; I still give him the benefit of the doubt. As others mentioned; donations are probably not policed.....

Now something to ponder. Doesn't a racist, etc. have a right to donate?

Now something to ponder. Doesn't a racist, etc. have a right to donate?

Of course he does. It's his money and he may for the most part do with it what he wishes. I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise. It is most certainly Mr. Black's right to donate. It is most certainly Mr. Paul's right to accept.

Should Mr. Paul choose to accept the donation that Mr. Black chose to give, Mr. Paul also accepts the consequences of that. Just because one has the right to do something does not mean one is free from the criticisms that arise from exercising said right.

I would also accept $500 from Mr Black. But Im not running for anything except to the bank to cash his check.

Encouraging all manner of people to actively engage in the political process is a noble goal; indeed, refusing to accept their money would be tantamount to an infringement on their basic constitutional freedoms. You cannot silence a man whose ideas you disagree with; similarly, you should not preclude him from donating money to whomever he wishes.

Encouraging all manner of people to actively engage in the political process is a noble goal; indeed, refusing to accept their money would be tantamount to an infringement on their basic constitutional freedoms. You cannot silence a man whose ideas you disagree with; similarly, you should not preclude him from donating money to whomever he wishes.

Wait, so if someone wants to give me money, I am constitutionally required to take it or I'm taking away that person's civil rights?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Wait, so if someone wants to give me money, I am constitutionally required to take it or I'm taking away that person's civil rights?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

No, that's not what I'm saying; indeed, that's why I used the word should to imply choice rather than necessity. However, I would consider a fundamental tenet of our democratic society to be the ability of a man to contribute to the campaign of whomever he wishes.

As someone said earlier this is fishy. Since Mr.Black gave such a small amount of money to the campaign in such a trasable way, I think he wants us NOT to vote for him. Therefore everyone should vote for Ron Paul or you are a Nazi.

No, that's not what I'm saying; indeed, that's why I used the word should to imply choice rather than necessity.

You said:

refusing to accept their money would be tantamount to an infringement on their basic constitutional freedoms

--stating that it is somehow a breach of someone else's freedoms if you don't take what they're offering.

You used should when you said:

You cannot silence a man whose ideas you disagree with; similarly, you should not preclude him from donating money to whomever he wishes.

Of course you shouldn't preclude someone from donating money to the candidates/causes he wants to support. That doesn't mean, however, that those candidates/causes have to take it.

However, I would consider a fundamental tenet of our democratic society to be the ability of a man to contribute to the campaign of whomever he wishes.

As would I. I also think it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic society that a candidate can refuse contributions from anyone he wishes.

Just like you can exercise your free speech, but I don't have to listen and I don't have to agree.

Click Stand;13174619']As someone said earlier this is fishy. Since Mr.Black gave such a small amount of money to the campaign in such a trasable way, I think he wants us NOT to vote for him. Therefore everyone should vote for Ron Paul or you are a Nazi.

You give Black far too much credit. I doubt he's even smart enough to know that he's hated.

--stating that it is somehow a breach of someone else's freedoms if you don't take what they're offering.

While it does not violate the letter of constitutional law, it violates its spirit.

While it does not violate the letter of constitutional law, it violates its spirit.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't violate the spirit of constitutional law any more than me going, "You know what, I don't want to hear what you have to say," and walking away does. You have every right to try and get your voice heard. I have every right to ignore you. The same goes for campaign contributions. You have every right to make them, and the candidate has every right to refuse them.

It would, in fact, be infringing on the candidate's rights to suggest that she must take money from any given source.

No, it doesn't.

You don't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his race; that's called discrimination and is unlawful. I would extend this concept (if not legally, at least morally) to encompass the rejection of one's campaign contribution on the basis of ideology. Some people with a mindset that dates back to the days before the civil rights movement may disagree, and that's OK with me; but that's not going to persuade me to adopt a less enlightened stance.

You don't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his race; that's called discrimination and is unlawful.

No, but I do have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his attitude. Funny how that works.

See, his ethnicity is not something he can help nor should it change his access to services or the political process. I would absolutely support a law that prevented candidates from rejecting contributions based on race (although I doubt people of the race that he would reject them from would give in the first place).

But, just as I can tell you to leave my establishment if you make an anti-Semitic remark and I don't like it (and that is as it should be), I can refuse money from you if you're a bigot. That isn't an infringement of your civil rights. In fact, it is a consequence of the fact that both you and I have them.

No, but I do have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his attitude. Funny how that works.

If by "attitude" you mean "behavior," then yes. However, that implies that you find the manner in which he acts within your place of business to be distasteful. That is, he abuses the service which you render unto him (presumably, the ability to purchase a good). However, this man has politely complied with the regulations regarding this service (the ability to make a donation). He is being judged on the basis of factors extraneous to that transaction -- that's wrong, just like refusing service to a mild-mannered homo-sexual is wrong, despite the fact that homo-sexuality is a choice.

Excuse me, RLI, but could you please cite a reputable source rather than a blog?

A cited blog is as reliable as a cited CNN article. The difference is that the blogger won't lie about the fact that his opinion is present in the news being presented.

Thats so cool. Its about time everybody stopped hating racists and realized that their is room in America for them too. I love Ron Paul!

If by "attitude" you mean "behavior," then yes.

And this man has behaved in such a way that I would feel perfectly fine denying him service.

I know a guy who owns a comic book store. After a KKK rally in the streets of his town, a few of the KKK members walked into his shop. He asked them to leave and then closed and locked the doors. That was well within his rights. He didn't violate their rights - he simply did not want to do business with them.

Good for Mr. Black and Dr. Paul, both of them. Stormfront is a community I frequent at, and I'm glad a candidate with some sense to him has finally arisen that can lead us down a better path. I'm glad Dr. Paul is getting all the support he rightfully deserves.

The overwhelming bias here toward both Don Black and Stormfront astounds me, actually.

Good for Mr. Black and Dr. Paul, both of them. Stormfront is a community I frequent at, and I'm glad a candidate with some sense to him has finally arisen that can lead us down a better path. I'm glad Dr. Paul is getting all the support he rightfully deserves.

The overwhelming bias here toward both Don Black and Stormfront astounds me, actually.

Why because we are not racist?

Why because we are not racist?
Stormfront is a White Nationalist community. White Nationalists are not racists. I'd rather associate with the handful of racists that are on SF than hang around with some (note: overwhelming majority) of the uber-Liberals, Socialists, and Communists here on NS.

Mr. Black and Stormfront is a White Nationalist community. White Nationalists are not racists.

And Nazis aren't fascists, because they're Nazis, not fascists!

Meh, rose by any other name etc. etc.

I'd rather associate with the handful of racists that are on SF than hang around with some of the uber-Liberals, Socialists, and Communists here on NS.

And yet, here you are.

And Nazis aren't fascists, because they're Nazis, not fascists!
They're not, actually. Nazis are National Socialists - closer in ideology to a lot of members here on NS than I am. I don't like them, generally, either. Just because a Nazi is on a site doesn't mean that site itself is "neo-Nazi". That's just plain ignorance.

Stormfront is a White Nationalist community. White Nationalists are not racists. I'd rather associate with the handful of racists that are on SF than hang around with some (note: overwhelming majority) of the uber-Liberals, Socialists, and Communists here on NS.

Gee, what part of "White Nationalist" isn't racist?

And even if Stormfront members are not all racists, Don Black clearly is. (linky (http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black.asp))

Gee, what part of "White Nationalist" isn't racist?
Hm, maybe I should stop eating White Bread while I'm at it.

They're not, actually. Nazis are National Socialists - closer in ideology to a lot of members here on NS than I am.

You're funny.

Stupid, but funny.

Hm, maybe I should stop eating White Bread while I'm at it.

depends, do you think the white bread will be better off if it stops having to share shelf space with the rhy and wheat?

Good for Mr. Black and Dr. Paul, both of them. Stormfront is a community I frequent at, and I'm glad a candidate with some sense to him has finally arisen that can lead us down a better path. I'm glad Dr. Paul is getting all the support he rightfully deserves.

The overwhelming bias here toward both Don Black and Stormfront astounds me, actually.

And yet another stirring testimonial for the racist and loony candidate.

Hm, maybe I should stop eating White Bread while I'm at it.

Gee, Stormfront is really about bakery preferences?

depends, do you think the white bread will be better off if it stops having to share shelf space with the rhy and wheat?
Assuming the rye bread is invading his country illegally and costing his government billions of dollars a year without being repaid, and that the wheat is committing a huge percentage of the violent crimes in his country and still getting unfair benefits such as Wheat Colleges and Wheat preference in employee hiring... Then yes, the White bread will be better off.

And yet another stirring testimonial for the racist and loony candidate.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative candidate running for office. He has my utmost support!

Assuming the rye bread is invading his country illegally and costing his government billions of dollars a year without being repaid, and that the wheat is committing a huge percentage of the violent crimes in his country and still getting benefits such as Wheat Colleges and Wheat preference in employee hiring... Then yes, the White bread will be better off.

Good thing you aren't a racist or people would get the wrong idea.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative candidate running for office. He has my utmost support!

Exactly my point. Thanks.

Is RonPaul that really tall transvestite?

That's RuPaul, dude.

Of course. We're so loony our eyes are rolling all the time! Aguhuhuhuhu! :rolleyes:
That is a good self-characterization I believe.

They're not, actually. Nazis are National Socialists - closer in ideology to a lot of members here on NS than I am. I don't like them, generally, either. Just because a Nazi is on a site doesn't mean that site itself is "neo-Nazi". That's just plain ignorance.
Correct.

The story here. (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/)

For those unfamiliar with Black, he's a neo-Nazi asshat who runs the site Stormfront, which is an online Shangri-La for KKKers, Nazis, Christian Identity, and other racist scum.

All I can say is, unless Paul returns the money, burns it, or gives it away (preferrably to an anti-racist organization :D), he has lost my vote.

No surprise there.

Umm, who cares?

Assuming the rye bread is invading his country illegally and costing his government billions of dollars a year without being repaid, and that the wheat is committing a huge percentage of the violent crimes in his country and still getting unfair benefits such as Wheat Colleges and Wheat preference in employee hiring... Then yes, the White bread will be better off.

oh right right, I see now.

Yeah, that's TOTALLY different than being a racist. :rolleyes:

Stormfront is a White Nationalist community. White Nationalists are not racists. I'd rather associate with the handful of racists that are on SF than hang around with some (note: overwhelming majority) of the uber-Liberals, Socialists, and Communists here on NS.

CM/DA/VE? Is that you? :upyours:

Umm, who cares?
Apparently anyone who has it in for Dr Paul.

Stormfront is a White Nationalist community. White Nationalists are not racists. I'd rather associate with the handful of racists that are on SF than hang around with some (note: overwhelming majority) of the uber-Liberals, Socialists, and Communists here on NS.
I'd rather avoid both entirely.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative candidate running for office. He has my utmost support!

That does not take away from him being a loon OR a racist ... was that statement actually made to contradict something?

Then what are you doing on NSG?

Edit: Question aimed at Imperial Brazil

Then what are you doing on NSG?

Edit: Question aimed at Imperial Brazil
Providing salvation to those worthy of it.

Apparently anyone who has it in for Dr Paul.

It always makes me giggle when people call him Dr. Paul. It reminds me that you don't actually have to care about patients to be a doctor, even a medical doctor.

I'm afraid I honestly don't understand what your problem is. Yes, they are opinion pieces and blogs, but they are opinion pieces and blogs written by the people in question. If you want to find out who Michael Peroutka and Gary North are endorsing then what better source is there than their own words?

Wait, really?

...

I need to take a closer look at some of these things before I dismiss them. My apologies.

It always makes me giggle when people call him Dr. Paul. It reminds me that you don't actually have to care about patients to be a doctor, even a medical doctor.
Bad experience with the doctors at the mental ward you were in, eh? Must be tough.

Oh, and given that he is a doctor, it is entirely appropriate.

Oh, and given that he is a doctor, it is entirely appropriate.
The fact that Paul is a medical doctor has very little to do with his worth as a politician.

That fact that he and his supporters stress the honorific is indicative of his political style.

Bad experience with the doctors at the mental ward you were in, eh? Must be tough.

Oh, and given that he is a doctor, it is entirely appropriate.

Really? I have seen a LOT of attempted insults on this board, some good some bad but wow just wow

Just because an organization donates to someone's campaign fund doesn't mean that the candidate support that organization.

Well, if that org donates ONLY to that candidate, then that means, that org thinks that the candidate stands for them. That in itself may not be proof of the candidates tainted nature, but raises suspicion why the org finds the candidate attractive.

Oh, and given that he is a doctor, it is entirely appropriate.

Given that he's perfectly ok with voting for laws that will do nothing at all but put patients in danger, calling him a doctor is an honor he doesn't deserve.

Hm, maybe I should stop eating White Bread while I'm at it.

WOW! Nice nonsequiter.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative candidate running for office. He has my utmost support!

Good. Now we know that you support racists and anti-federalists.

anti-federalists.

What? Does anyone even USE that term anymore? Apart from you, oh student of history.

Bad experience with the doctors at the mental ward you were in, eh? Must be tough.

Nice flame!

What? Does anyone even USE that term anymore? Apart from you, oh student of history.

It is an appropriate term to use for those who do not support the Constitution of the United States.

It is an appropriate term to use for those who do not support the Constitution of the United States.

Not exactly. I'm pretty certain it was meant as anti-federal government, hence the term anti-federalist. The term you want is Anti-Constitutionalist.

Not exactly. I'm pretty certain it was meant as anti-federal government, hence the term anti-federalist. The term you want is Anti-Constitutionalist.

Well...according to history, those who opposed the constitution were called anti-federalists but yea...what you say is also true. However, in Ron Paul's case...i believe he can be called both? :D

Well...according to history, those who opposed the constitution were called anti-federalists but yea...what you say is also true. However, in Ron Paul's case...i believe he can be called both? :D
Indeed. We can certainly agree on that at least.

Indeed. We can certainly agree on that at least.

I'm glad we can.

Good for Mr. Black and Dr. Paul, both of them. Stormfront is a community I frequent at, and I'm glad a candidate with some sense to him has finally arisen that can lead us down a better path. I'm glad Dr. Paul is getting all the support he rightfully deserves.

The overwhelming bias here toward both Don Black and Stormfront astounds me, actually.

I was wondering when the Stormfront crowd would arrive here on NSG. Don't they usually arrive in droves though?

Well, if that org donates ONLY to that candidate, then that means, that org thinks that the candidate stands for them. That in itself may not be proof of the candidates tainted nature, but raises suspicion why the org finds the candidate attractive.

It's StormFront, do you really expect any rationality of why they do what they do?

Really? I have seen a LOT of attempted insults on this board, some good some bad but wow just wow
No worse than most of the attempts at argument on this board.

Given that he's perfectly ok with voting for laws that will do nothing at all but put patients in danger, calling him a doctor is an honor he doesn't deserve.
Laws, such as? And the title Dr is by virtue of his degree, so it applies regardless of how good or bad he is.

Laws, such as?

The so-called "partial birth abortion" ban, for one. It's a law that won't stop a single abortion from happening, but makes them more dangerous for the woman - both by removing a procedural option that might be best for her and by prompting doctors to make other procedures more dangerous in order to avoid accidentally breaking the law. That one is also even more fun, since Paul stood up in a session and said it was unconstitutional, but that he was voting for it anyways. So much for upholding the Constitution, eh? It's always interesting when congressmen break the oath of office, but it isn't every day you see them flat-out saying they're doing it.

Voting for it also quite clearly went against his usual argument that abortion is a "state's rights issue".

It's really a prime example of Paul's hypocrisy. He claims to be the "champion of the Constitution", but will blatantly disregard it when it suits him and he'll even tell you he's doing so. He claims that abortion is a "state's rights" issue, and then votes for a federal ban on an abortion procedure, in clear opposition to the state's rights position. And, in the process, he (a) breaks his oath of office and (b) pretty clearly breaks the oath he took as an MD as well - I'm fairly certain that endangering patients is a no-no in any form of the Hippocratic oath.

And the title Dr is by virtue of his degree, so it applies regardless of how good or bad he is.

Of course it applies. That doesn't mean one has to use it when referring to him, however.

So what?

He claims that abortion is a "state's rights" issue, and then votes for a federal ban on an abortion procedure, in clear opposition to the state's rights position.

That pretty well killed Ron Paul for me. Damned Federalists...

That pretty well killed Ron Paul for me. Damned Federalists...

Apparently someone does, Mattress.

Apparently someone does, Mattress.

Use the term antifederalist? Yes I do, mainly because the term "states' rights" is a misnomer and carries some rather negative connotations. When describing my political ideology I generally tell people that I'm an antifederalist socialist or antifederalist social democrat.

Use the term antifederalist? Yes I do, mainly because the term "states' rights" is a misnomer and carries some rather negative connotations. When describing my political ideology I generally tell people that I'm an antifederalist socialist or antifederalist social democrat.

Except that means you want a return/continue under the Articles of Confederation which was not working.

Wait, really?

...

I need to take a closer look at some of these things before I dismiss them. My apologies.

No worries, I'm the same on Mondays. :D

Except that means you want a return/continue under the Articles of Confederation which was not working.

It would, were we in the 1780s. The meanings of terms change.

Except that means you want a return/continue under the Articles of Confederation which was not working.

no it doesn't.

and only if you defined 'working' in terms of creating a powerful central government. on other standards the articles worked just fine.

no it doesn't.

and only if you defined 'working' in terms of creating a powerful central government. on other standards the articles worked just fine.

Um...yea! :rolleyes:

That's why the delegates sent to redue the articles voted to scrap the whole thing and started over :rolleyes:

Um...yea! :rolleyes:

That's why the delegates sent to redue the articles voted to scrap the whole thing and started over :rolleyes:

Then in what sense were the Articles not working?

Then in what sense were the Articles not working?

For starters, nothing could get approved due to the approvement requirement. It is kind of hard to amend the Articles when it takes all the colonies to ratify it. Its real only accomplishment was the Northwest Ordinence.

Cerean;13173321']Add christian nutters
Oh please. Get your mind out of that hole. Dont associate CI with real Christians.

For starters, nothing could get approved due to the approvement requirement. It is kind of hard to amend the Articles when it takes all the colonies to ratify it. Its real only accomplishment was the Northwest Ordinence.

Why did the Articles need to be amended? What exactly was the problem?

Why did the Articles need to be amended? What exactly was the problem?

As much as I hate to quote wiki for historical purposes:

Under the articles Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. There was a requirement for unanimous approval before any modifications could be made to the Articles.

Congress was denied the power of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving the confederation chronically short of funds.

As much as I hate to quote wiki for historical purposes:

In other words, it failed at creating a powerful central government?

In other words, it failed at creating a powerful central government?

In otherwords, nothing could get done. No money could be invested either.

In otherwords, nothing could get done. No money could be invested either.

Nothing could get done and money couldn't be invested by the central government, you mean. There were 13 state governments fully capable of doings things and investing money.

No worse than most of the attempts at argument on this board.


Laws, such as? And the title Dr is by virtue of his degree, so it applies regardless of how good or bad he is.

She said he does not "deserve it" not that he does not have the right to be called such.

Nothing could get done and money couldn't be invested by the central government, you mean. There were 13 state governments fully capable of doings things and investing money.

They couldn't do shit either. Of the 13 state governments, only one actually had any money that was usable.

In other words, it failed at creating a powerful central government?

So "functional" is equivalent to "powerful" in your book? No, the Articles of Confederation failed at creating a functional federal government. There is no point even having one if it has no power at all.

The Constitution, on the other hand, created a system in which the states still held most of the power, but the federal government did have some and was able to actually function.

The federal government has become more powerful since then basically due to the fact that the states have begun to abdicate power to it - essentially giving the federal government functions that would otherwise have been taken care of by the state by choosing to rely on the federal government for funding.

No worse than most of the attempts at argument on this board.

Then how come you are so often on the losing end of those arguments?:p

Regardless, let's get back to topic. As self-appointed apologist for Ron Paul, how do you feel about the campaign contribution from Don Black? Should he return it? Will he?

The so-called "partial birth abortion" ban, for one. It's a law that won't stop a single abortion from happening, but makes them more dangerous for the woman - both by removing a procedural option that might be best for her and by prompting doctors to make other procedures more dangerous in order to avoid accidentally breaking the law. That one is also even more fun, since Paul stood up in a session and said it was unconstitutional, but that he was voting for it anyways. So much for upholding the Constitution, eh? It's always interesting when congressmen break the oath of office, but it isn't every day you see them flat-out saying they're doing it.

Voting for it also quite clearly went against his usual argument that abortion is a "state's rights issue".

It's really a prime example of Paul's hypocrisy. He claims to be the "champion of the Constitution", but will blatantly disregard it when it suits him and he'll even tell you he's doing so. He claims that abortion is a "state's rights" issue, and then votes for a federal ban on an abortion procedure, in clear opposition to the state's rights position. And, in the process, he (a) breaks his oath of office and (b) pretty clearly breaks the oath he took as an MD as well - I'm fairly certain that endangering patients is a no-no in any form of the Hippocratic oath.

I'm waiting to see how the Ron Paul apologists deal with the fact that he is both a liar and a hypocrite. (In addition to being dangerous, racist, and loony).

I'm waiting to see how the Ron Paul apologists deal with the fact that he is both a liar and a hypocrite. (In addition to being dangerous, racist, and loony).

Don't hold your breath. I've yet to see anyone manage it. The best I've gotten is, "Yeah, all of that is disturbing, but his other policies are more important."

The story here. (http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/)

For those unfamiliar with Black, he's a neo-Nazi asshat who runs the site Stormfront, which is an online Shangri-La for KKKers, Nazis, Christian Identity, and other racist scum.

All I can say is, unless Paul returns the money, burns it, or gives it away (preferrably to an anti-racist organization :D), he has lost my vote.

Peon. Keep voting for the retards who've run this country into the ground.

Bush (VP), Bush (VP), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. You're a joke!

'Racist' = any White person who exhibits any human instincts

Peon. Keep voting for the retards who've run this country into the ground.

Bush (VP), Bush (VP), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. You're a joke!

Wait, not voting for Paul automatically means you vote for Clinton?

Damn, and here I thought I had a different candidate in mind...

'Racist' = any White person who exhibits any human instincts

Really? And here I was thinking it had something to do with discriminating against or judging someone based purely on ethnicity....

'Racist' = any White person who exhibits any human instincts

Is this supposed to be a critique of humans, white people, or the term racist?

Wait, not voting for Paul automatically means you vote for Clinton?

Damn, and here I thought I had a different candidate in mind...

Who's that? Obama? Who is absolutely clueless by any standard? Romney? Who hasn't said or done a single noteworthy thing in his career, save for smiling looking pretty in front of cameras? Rudy "I was Mayor of New York on 9/11" Giuliani? If you actually look at what these candidates stand for, the only one who is consistent and coherent (and not talking about seeing UFOs...) is Ron Paul.

Who's that? Obama? Who is absolutely clueless by any standard? Romney? Who hasn't said or done a single noteworthy thing in his career, save for smiling looking pretty in front of cameras? Rudy "I was Mayor of New York on 9/11" Giuliani? If you actually look at what these candidates stand for, the only one who is consistent and coherent (and not talking about seeing UFOs...) is Ron Paul.

Yet another sterling endorsement of Ron Paul. I'm sure he appreciates your support.

BTW, care to explain how Ron Paul has been consistent and coherent on the topic of abortion?

Is this supposed to be a critique of humans, white people, or the term racist?

The term itself is an anti-White connotation.

Objecting to tidal wave of illegal immigration = 'racist'

Objecting to 'affirmative action' = 'racist'

Objecting to besmirchment of history and culture = 'racist'

Seeking to preserve one's nation and heritage = 'racist' (neverminding that Japan, for instance, actively maintains a homogeneous society, with less than 1% foreigner)

In other words, anything Whites do in defense of themselves, or in favor of themselves, in any way, is 'racist'. It is an attack word and racist in and of itself.

Seeking to preserve one's nation and heritage = 'racist' (neverminding that Japan, for instance, actively maintains a homogeneous society, with less than 1% foreigner)

Japan is famous for racism.

Who's that? Obama? Who is absolutely clueless by any standard?

I don't know what standards you use, but Obama is far from clueless.

If you actually look at what these candidates stand for, the only one who is consistent and coherent (and not talking about seeing UFOs...) is Ron Paul.

Consistent and coherent, eh? Like how he'll tell you that he's the champion of the Constitution, and then blatantly and intentionally vote something into law that he says is unconstitutional - both breaking his oath of office and being incredibly inconsistent? Like how he'll tell you that he's in favor of free trade, but wants to repeal all of agreements that have moved the US towards free trade? Like how he'll tell you that he thinks certain issues should be decided by the states, but then he'll vote for federal measures regulating them?

Or maybe it's the bill he proposed that, despite his insistence that we should pull all troops out of Iraq right now, did absolutely nothing but say, "In 6 months we might kind of in a way start ending the war, if we feel like it then."

Or maybe the coherent part is the bill he proposed that would have instantly repealed all US code dealing with finances and legal tender without replacing it with anything, effectively bankrupting nearly every American in one fell swoop by making all of their money useless?

Paul has a lot of rhetoric. He talks about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and says he wants to uphold the Constitution. And, if he actually did it, he might be a good candidate. Unfortunately, he quite simply doesn't. All he does is spout rhetoric and propose bills that obviously haven't been thought out beyond ideological nonsense.

Japan is famous for racism.

That's a bad thing? Preserving their existence? Their unique culture and traditions? Looking out for themselves?

I admire the Japanese.

Or maybe the coherent part is the bill he proposed that would have instantly repealed all US code dealing with finances and legal tender without replacing it with anything, effectively bankrupting nearly every American in one fell swoop by making all of their money useless?


I have got to see this.

That's a bad thing? Preserving their existence? Their unique culture and traditions? Looking out for themselves?

I admire the Japanese.

Ever hear of a little thing called World War II? You might want to look up the part played by the Japanese.

The term itself is an anti-White connotation.

No, it doesn't have any such thing. Anyone of any ethnic background can be racist.

Objecting to tidal wave of illegal immigration = 'racist'

Depends on why you object to it.

Objecting to 'affirmative action' = 'racist'

Once again, depends on why you object to it. Most people with objections have them because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what affirmative action actually is.

Objecting to besmirchment of history and culture = 'racist'

Huh?

Seeking to preserve one's nation and heritage = 'racist'

If you're preserving your own heritage at the expense of others', absolutely. If you think your heritage somehow entitles you to better treatment than others, absolutely.

If you, as an individual, want to preserve your own traditions, of course not. But you don't need to mess with other individuals to do that.

Bad experience with the doctors at the mental ward you were in, eh? Must be tough.

Oh, and given that he is a doctor, it is entirely appropriate.

No, not appropriate (as you don't define what is a flame/trolling statement and what isn't. Knock it off.

If you're preserving your own heritage at the expense of others', absolutely. If you think your heritage somehow entitles you to better treatment than others, absolutely.

At the expense of others?

Let us take Ireland, for example. Within the last decade, they've become a society composed of, at least, 15% foreigner. Let us say that in 2020, the Irish feel significantly threatened by this tidal wave of 'immigration', and decide to deport all illegal immigrants, and stop all further immigration. Not because they 'hate' (are 'racist'), but because they want Ireland to exist! They want the Irish culture, language, and people to remain the majority. That is healthy, natural, and not 'at the expense of others'. Ireland, and no nation, has any obligation to anyone in the world except their own citizens.

Japan is something for the West to aspire towards.

I have got to see this.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-2779
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005103----000-.html

Basically, the bill would have voided the part of US law that makes US coin and currency legal tender.

Whoops! All of your money is now teh useless!

What, you think that if Ron Paul gets elected he'll reinstitute Jim Crow?

Racist or not (I have no idea - nor do I really care, since I'm a proud non-voter - either way), he'd have to invent a mind control machine to dominate both House and Senate before implement any racist policies. And that is not only impossible (at least with current technology), but it's political suicide. Hell, the only thing that scares me about David Duke is the shit he would and COULD (conceivably) do if he were president, like start a war with Israel over imaginary WMDs.

I may not think much of America, but I know that the American people are AT LEAST smart enough to keep the country free from blatantly racist policies.

Ever hear of a little thing called World War II? You might want to look up the part played by the Japanese.

Uh, yeah. Look up Unit 731. Made Auschwitz look like Disneyland.

At the expense of others?

Yes, at the expense of others. If you can't preserve your own culture without imposing on others, that's your problem, not theirs.

Let us take Ireland, for example. Within the last decade, they've become a society composed of, at least, 15% foreigner. Let us say that in 2020, the Irish feel significantly threatened by this tidal wave of 'immigration', and decide to deport all illegal immigrants, and stop all further immigration. Not because they 'hate' (are 'racist'), but because they want Ireland to exist!

(a) Once someone immigrates, they are no longer a "foreigner". Thus, Ireland could only be "15% foreigner" if Ireland had that many people living there on visas and the like.

(b) Ireland would not cease to exist because of immigration.

They want the Irish culture, language, and people to remain the majority.

Again, unless people on visas and the like somehow begin to outnumber Irish citizens, it is impossible for the Irish people not to be the majority in Ireland. Someone who has immigrated is no less Irish than someone who was born there. They're all citizens.

And if someone wants the parts of culture they like to be practiced by the majority, they better go about convincing the majority that said culture is a good one.

That is healthy, natural, and not 'at the expense of others'.

No, it isn't at all healthy and it quite certainly is at the expense of others.

Ireland, and no nation, has any obligation to anyone in the world except their own citizens.

Indeed, their own citizens (and anyone they've made treaties with). And since immigrants become citizens, that means that Ireland has an obligation to those people - to allow them to live as they see fit.

What, you think that if Ron Paul gets elected he'll reinstitute Jim Crow?

It's fairly likely that he'd try. He's already stated that he thinks black youths should be treated differently in criminal court than white youths. And he'd most likely argue that states should be able to discriminate against blacks if they feel like it. He certainly argues that in reference to sexuality.

Would he succeed? Highly unlikely.

It's fairly likely that he'd try. He's already stated that he thinks black youths should be treated differently in criminal court than white youths. And he'd most likely argue that states should be able to discriminate against blacks if they feel like it. He certainly argues that in reference to sexuality.

Would he succeed? Highly unlikely.

Let me guess. You think profiling is 'racist'?

I don't know where you live, but I live in a heavily ... Black area, and there is a difference in crime between Blacks and others. You can argue its sources, but it is what it is. When an Asian store owner follows around a Black youth, he has reason to! Does it happen to innocent Blacks? Yes, but it has its source in reality.

Would he succeed? Highly unlikely.

EXACTLY. And, like I said, racist or not, any halfway successful politician is smart enough not to do the political equivalent of jamming a gun into their mouth, shooting, and then evacuating their bowels all over their career.

And if he's not even halfway successful as a politician, he won't win, so why worry?

Someone who has immigrated is no less Irish than someone who was born there.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the funniest, most naive and c :pute things I've ever read.

Let me guess. You think profiling is 'racist'?

Indeed. Treating someone differently based solely on their ethnicity is the very definition of racism, just as treating someone differently based solely on their gender or sex is the very definition of sexism.

If a store owner follows someone around who is acting suspicious, that makes sense. If he follows someone around simply because that someone happens to have dark skin, he is acting in a clearly racist manner.

Indeed, their own citizens (and anyone they've made treaties with). And since immigrants become citizens, that means that Ireland has an obligation to those people - to allow them to live as they see fit.

Nations do not have any obligation towards foreign citizens!

I'm sorry, but that is one of the funniest, most naive and c :pute things I've ever read.

Nothing naive about it. That's how it works. When someone becomes a citizen of a country, they are a citizen of that country. It doesn't matter if they were born there or not. They have become a part of that country and, by extension, their culture has become a part of that country's culture. Even if they are simply a permanent resident, they have become just as much a part of that culture and nation as anyone else there.

Nations do not have any obligation towards foreign citizens!

We aren't talking about foreign citizens. We're talking about naturalized citizens.

Meanwhile, nations do have obligations towards foreign citizens when they have signed treaties that impose such obligations. And nations have at least some obligation towards human beings in general.

Japan is famous for racism.
Japan is famous for Nationalism. They're one of the greatest countries in the world, with less than 3% of their population being non-Japanese and their original traditions and culture burgeoning alongside new advances and technology. Crime rates are extremely low when compared to our righteous multicultural America, and they have excellent education systems with nearly perfect literacy rates.

Nothing naive about it. That's how it works. When someone becomes a citizen of a country, they are a citizen of that country. It doesn't matter if they were born there or not. They have become a part of that country and, by extension, their culture has become a part of that country's culture. Even if they are simply a permanent resident, they have become just as much a part of that culture and nation as anyone else there.
So you think a German moving to Ireland, bringing with him all of his German culture and combining it with the Irish culture makes him Irish? By definition, he is indeed Irish, but in no way is he any less German or any more Irish. The culture he brews then is hardly Irish either, since it is just an amalgamation of German and Irish culture combined. Do you seriously think, for example, the people of Ireland should have to learn German to benefit a minority of Germans? That's what is happening today in America on the issue of Mexican immigrants, be they legal or otherwise.

You don't call what you are saying naive, but I wholeheartedly believe it is.

I may not think much of America, but I know that the American people are AT LEAST smart enough to keep the country free from blatantly racist policies.
People don't seem to realize how many Black Democrats (including Black Nationalists) he is also getting support from.

Hell, White and Black Nationalists might as well be best friends.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-2779
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005103----000-.html

Basically, the bill would have voided the part of US law that makes US coin and currency legal tender.

Whoops! All of your money is now teh useless!

And now we are right back to the Articles of Confederation all over again :headbang:

So you think a German moving to Ireland, bringing with him all of his German culture and combining it with the Irish culture makes him Irish? By definition, he is indeed Irish, but in no way is he any less German or any more Irish. The culture he brews then is hardly Irish either, since it is just an amalgamation of German and Irish culture combined. Do you seriously think, for example, the people of Ireland should have to learn German to benefit a minority of Germans? That's what is happening today in America on the issue of Mexican immigrants, be they legal or otherwise.

The idea that immigrants are not assimilating and thus destroying the culture of a nation founded on immigration is ascinine to the extreme.

Funny too, but for the most part, fucking stupid.

Then how come you are so often on the losing end of those arguments?:p
Because I do not think most of you are worth my time, being the dangerous loons you are.

Peon. Keep voting for the retards who've run this country into the ground.

Bush (VP), Bush (VP), Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. You're a joke!

I would never vote for any of them.

No, not appropriate (as you don't define what is a flame/trolling statement and what isn't. Knock it off.
Where did I say I do?

So you think a German moving to Ireland, bringing with him all of his German culture and combining it with the Irish culture makes him Irish?

If he becomes an Irish citizen or a permanent resident of Ireland, he is just as Irish as any other Irish citizen or permanent resident of Ireland. As such, his customs become part of the overall culture of Ireland.

Culture doesn't involve a hive mind. Individuals choose the traditions, customs, etc. that are important to them. If a majority of people in a given society have chosen specific traditions and customs, those will be more visible than less popular ones.

It doesn't matter who your parents were or what your ethnicity is or what nation you were born in. Every individual chooses the aspects of culture that are important to her.

The culture he brews then is hardly Irish either, since it is just an amalgamation of German and Irish culture combined.

And since he is Irish, that means that his amalgamation of some things that he knew in Germany and some things he has now picked up in Ireland is part of Irish culture. The fact that he wasn't born Irish is irrelevant. Even those who were born Irish will have a great deal of variation in the aspects of culture that they choose to value.

Do you seriously think, for example, the people of Ireland should have to learn German to benefit a minority of Germans? That's what is happening today in America on the issue of Mexican immigrants, be they legal or otherwise.

Do I think people should be required to learn another language? No, not at all. I think it's useful, but hardly a necessity. And no one in the US has to learn Spanish. It can be useful, but you're hardly going to suffer great hardship because you don't know it.

The term itself is an anti-White connotation.

Yes, because it clearly doesn't apply to those of other ethnicities. Oh no, those Hispanics who hate anyone who's not Hispanic aren't racist. :rolleyes:

Objecting to tidal wave of illegal immigration = 'racist'

Actually, not true. If there really was a tidal wave of illegal immigration, I'd be opposed, and I am opposed to illegal immigration on principle. What's racist in when you're opposed because they're not white or because they're immigrants at all.

Objecting to 'affirmative action' = 'racist'

Again, not true. I am firmly opposed to affirmative action as it currently works because all it does is implement the reverse of the previous situation while helping no one.

What's racist is if you're opposed to affirmative action because you don't like blacks or what have you.

Objecting to besmirchment of history and culture = 'racist'

Not true again, but that depends on how you define culture. If you define it as being "White history" and "white culture" then yes it is racist.

Seeking to preserve one's nation and heritage = 'racist' (neverminding that Japan, for instance, actively maintains a homogeneous society, with less than 1% foreigner)

Again, it depends on how you define the nation and heritage. And I would be the first to gladly call Japan a nation of xenophobic racists, though they have a decent excuse: their society has remained homogenous for thousands of years simply due to their isolated location. It's resulted in a society of values that otherwise wouldn't have occurred. Even there Japan has PLENTY of redeeming qualities and if they can get past their own misguided superiority belief--which I am certain they will within six generations at most--they'll be a fantastic culture.

In other words, anything Whites do in defense of themselves, or in favor of themselves, in any way, is 'racist'. It is an attack word and racist in and of itself.
If you're talking about "Defending" against other ethnicities just existing, yeah it's racist and it offends me. Now, if you're defending against racism from others, then it's not racism on your own part, but in this case, since that's not happening, yeah, you're a racist. Why can't you just admit it? Why lie to yourself like this? It doesn't help you at all. Really, instead of lying to yourself, be honest. If you don't like the idea of being a racist, you should probably examine why you think the way you do to begin with. You don't need this stress, and really, you should join the rest of us in the twenty-first century. We're friendly and we'll accept you if you're willing to become more tolerant.

Neo Nazis are Americans. They get to vote just like the rest of us. Is there some reason that they are not allowed to support politicians. Can someone explain to me why Ron Paul is racist?

Neo Nazis are Americans. They get to vote just like the rest of us. Is there some reason that they are not allowed to support politicians. Can someone explain to me why Ron Paul is racist?

No one is saying that they can't support politicians. What we're saying is that other people shouldn't support the politician that Neo-Nazis, racists, and the like support because it shines a poor light indeed upon that candidate. I know I'd never vote for Ron Paul, nor would I vote for Tom Tancredo, Mike HUckabee, Sam Brownback, or any other Republican candidate.

No one is saying that they can't support politicians. What we're saying is that other people shouldn't support the politician that Neo-Nazis, racists, and the like support because it shines a poor light indeed upon that candidate. I know I'd never vote for Ron Paul, nor would I vote for Tom Tancredo, Mike HUckabee, Sam Brownback, or any other Republican candidate.

Which makes you a shallow voter if you vote only straight ticket every election.

Which makes you a shallow voter if you vote only straight ticket every election.

I don't, actually, since I'm not a Democrat. I won't be voting for anything Republican this year, however, because I have no intentions of allowing that party any access to any power ever again. Admittedly I find the idea of allowing the Democrats power repulsive as well, but it's the lesser of two evils. Believe you me I'd be much happier with someone like the Greens in power.

No one is saying that they can't support politicians. What we're saying is that other people shouldn't support the politician that Neo-Nazis, racists, and the like support because it shines a poor light indeed upon that candidate. I know I'd never vote for Ron Paul, nor would I vote for Tom Tancredo, Mike HUckabee, Sam Brownback, or any other Republican candidate.

I mean, Ron Paul is not a racist.

The idea that immigrants are not assimilating and thus destroying the culture of a nation founded on immigration is ascinine to the extreme.

Funny too, but for the most part, fucking stupid.

I think it comes from the same place as those who think that allowing members of other ethnicities/sexes/sexualities/etc. to get equal rights under the law is somehow an attack on them. People put themselves and, in this case, the parts of their culture that they hold dear up on a pedestal and expect others to afford it some sort of privileged status. If they are exposed to too many other viewpoints or cultural backgrounds, it appears as a "threat" because they might actually have to come down off a pedestal and recognize that the things they hold dear simply aren't universal - whether it's in their own neighborhood, city, state, nation, continent, or world.


Again, not true. I am firmly opposed to affirmative action as it currently works because all it does is implement the reverse of the previous situation while helping no one.

I don't think you're really aware of how affirmative action currently works.

Here's an example of affirmative action geared towards equality of the sexes. When I was in undergrad, members of the Society of Women Engineers (SWE, which did include some male members) would go to some of the local after school programs. We'd help with science and math homework or projects or do science demonstrations. The fact that we were a predominantly female group doing this served as a demonstration to the boys and girls in these programs that, despite the stereotypes, women can and do succeed at and enjoy these subjects.

I've participated in similar programs that target opportunities to see and participate in science to inner city (and thus predominantly black) summer and after-school programs.

All of these things are considered "affirmative action". Do you think they somehow disadvantage men or non-minority youths or that they help no one? Would you oppose these programs?

Neo Nazis are Americans. They get to vote just like the rest of us. Is there some reason that they are not allowed to support politicians.

They are allowed to support whoever they want. And the politicians they seek to support are allowed to reject monetary support from them if they want to.

Can someone explain to me why Ron Paul is racist?

The whole thing where he thinks black society is barbaric, that only 5% the entire black population in this country has "sensible" political viewpoints, that black youths should be treated more harshly by the law than white youths, that black people as a whole support criminal activity....

And that's just from one racist rant he wrote.

The whole thing where he thinks black society is barbaric, that only 5% the entire black population in this country has "sensible" political viewpoints, that black youths should be treated more harshly by the law than white youths, that black people as a whole support criminal activity....

And that's just from one racist rant he wrote.

woaw, really? Is there a link for this?

woaw, really? Is there a link for this?

This is the easiest link with full text:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

It's from the Ron Paul Political Report, an online newsletter Paul published.

Here are excerpts from that rant and others:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Years later he decided to claim that this particular rant was written by a "ghost writer", but he had control over the newsletter and he put it out in his own name.

I mean, Ron Paul is not a racist.
Oh yes he is. His rants about black youths are only the tip of the iceberg.

I will never understand why racists deny that they are racists. You are what you are, so why lie to yourself? If you can't stand the thought, then WHY BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE?! My FUCK, people, THINK!
I think it comes from the same place as those who think that allowing members of other ethnicities/sexes/sexualities/etc. to get equal rights under the law is somehow an attack on them. People put themselves and, in this case, the parts of their culture that they hold dear up on a pedestal and expect others to afford it some sort of privileged status. If they are exposed to too many other viewpoints or cultural backgrounds, it appears as a "threat" because they might actually have to come down off a pedestal and recognize that the things they hold dear simply aren't universal - whether it's in their own neighborhood, city, state, nation, continent, or world.
Though one does have to recognize that this thing occurs because of survival instincts. Our survival instincts are based in tribes, and in prioritizing that tribe over all others so that tribe can keep on living, passing it's genes, and so on and so forth. That's why it takes education to prevent xenophobia. Xenophobia is actually a natural trait that would be expressed in all of us if we weren't educated against it.



I don't think you're really aware of how affirmative action currently works.

Perhaps not. Let's see what you have to say.

Here's an example of affirmative action geared towards equality of the sexes. When I was in undergrad, members of the Society of Women Engineers (SWE, which did include some male members) would go to some of the local after school programs. We'd help with science and math homework or projects or do science demonstrations. The fact that we were a predominantly female group doing this served as a demonstration to the boys and girls in these programs that, despite the stereotypes, women can and do succeed at and enjoy these subjects.

Okay.

I've participated in similar programs that target opportunities to see and participate in science to inner city (and thus predominantly black) summer and after-school programs.

Fine by me.

All of these things are considered "affirmative action". Do you think they somehow disadvantage men or non-minority youths or that they help no one? Would you oppose these programs?

Nope. I suppose I should clarify that what I oppose are quotas and other things that try to elevate minorities above whites rather than make them truly equal and give everyone a chance to be recognized on their merits. I have a problem when a less qualified minority is chosen over, say, a white person despite the white person being better qualified simply to fill a quota. That to me is unfair because it punishes us for something we didn't do. I want equality, not a tip of the scale.


They are allowed to support whoever they want. And the politicians they seek to support are allowed to reject monetary support from them if they want to.

Exactly.

The whole thing where he thinks black society is barbaric, that only 5% the entire black population in this country has "sensible" political viewpoints, that black youths should be treated more harshly by the law than white youths, that black people as a whole support criminal activity....

And that's just from one racist rant he wrote.

What else has he written?

Just because a racist donates money to Ron Paul doesn't mean he is a racist. Neither should Ron Paul burn the money or return it, as it is voluntarily contributed.

A person who writes things such as "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." is no racist. The racists at Stormfront will be very disappointed if they think that Dr. Paul is one of them.

All of the people attacking Ron Paul have ulterior motives. He is genuinely threatening to people who advocate murder (aggressive war) and theft (high taxes and wealth redistribution scams, if not even worse utterly discredited socialist schemes). I recognize that the left-totalitarians and right-totalitarians stand to lose a whole lot if Ron Paul wins and that is why they hate him so much that they engage in defamation.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Win or lose, his campaign will vastly increase the size of the libertarian movement worldwide and will permanently do so. In the long run, the policies of Statism are unsustainable if people wish to live in a prosperous and/or free society and libertarianism will eventually win the total victory that the classical liberals failed to achieve when they started compromising with the reactionary Statists.

So "functional" is equivalent to "powerful" in your book? No, the Articles of Confederation failed at creating a functional federal government. There is no point even having one if it has no power at all.

again, this is merely to say that it didn't do something it was designed to not do.

and there are all sorts of useful purposes for entirely subordinate 'upper' bodies. coordination between autonomous 'lower' units, for example.

again, this is merely to say that it didn't do something it was designed to not do.

Except that it was designed to do so. It didn't. That's why it was scrapped.

Win or lose, his campaign will vastly increase the size of the libertarian movement worldwide and will permanently do so.
How? Paul's a paleoconservative. He's no more a libertarian than Marx.

Though one does have to recognize that this thing occurs because of survival instincts. Our survival instincts are based in tribes, and in prioritizing that tribe over all others so that tribe can keep on living, passing it's genes, and so on and so forth. That's why it takes education to prevent xenophobia. Xenophobia is actually a natural trait that would be expressed in all of us if we weren't educated against it.

I don't know if that's entirely true. Our "tribes" these days are expanded quite a bit and now include all sorts of cultural backgrounds. In our society, you have to make an actual effort not to be exposed to multiple ethnicities and cultural backgrounds and not to have a social group or "tribe" that includes them.

Nope. I suppose I should clarify that what I oppose are quotas and other things that try to elevate minorities above whites rather than make them truly equal and give everyone a chance to be recognized on their merits. I have a problem when a less qualified minority is chosen over, say, a white person despite the white person being better qualified simply to fill a quota. That to me is unfair because it punishes us for something we didn't do. I want equality, not a tip of the scale.

That's unfair to everyone. And it isn't affirmative action. When affirmative action was begun, there were such programs and people realized then that they were counter-productive. Affirmative action these days doesn't involve elevating less qualified anything. At most, a minority may be given priority in the instance that there is a single opening, and both a minority and majority are competing for it. In other words, minority status may be used as a tiebreaker.

What else has he written?

Hard to tell exactly. Very few of his old newsletters are on the web in their entirety anymore. The Daily KOS (which I just linked) found some more, I believe.

His "being born in the US shouldn't make you a US citizen" policy makes me a bit suspicious of racism as well, especially given the other statements.


All of the people attacking Ron Paul have ulterior motives.

Is not wanting my country to fall apart really an "ulterior motive"?

What about wanting to see my civil rights and those of others protected?

How about not wanting Congress to pick judges based on what decisions they will or will not make or being able to impeach them for making a decision they don't like?

How about thinking that my hard-earned money should continue to be taken as legal tender?


I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Win or lose, his campaign will vastly increase the size of the libertarian movement worldwide and will permanently do so

I find it hilarious that people call Ron Paul a libertarian. Last time I checked, the libertarian movement generally frowns on the government - any government - infringing on civil rights. I'm pretty sure they also value the separation of church and state. And free trade. The last one is the only one that Ron Paul even pays lip service to, and his policies reveal that he's not all that interested in that one either.

again, this is merely to say that it didn't do something it was designed to not do.

and there are all sorts of useful purposes for entirely subordinate 'upper' bodies. coordination between autonomous 'lower' units, for example.

So the federal government was never supposed to function or have any power at all?

You can't have coordination of lower units through an upper unit unless the upper unit has at least some power. That doesn't mean it must have more power than the lower units, but it must have some power that they must respond to. Otherwise, it's useless for accomplishing anything. Anything that it could accomplish could just as well be accomplished without it.

All of the people supporting Ron Paul have ulterior motives. He is genuinely threatening to people who advocate tolerance (racial equality) and fairness (affirmative action and gettho developement plans, if not even worse, welfare). I recognize that the neo-nazis and white supremacists stand to lose a whole lot if Ron Paul lose and that is why they love him so much that they engage in fact twisting.

I can read your mind too.

Except that it was designed to do so. It didn't. That's why it was scrapped.

no, it was scrapped because a bunch of people were not really down with the revolution. they wanted to centralize power back into the hands of the local gentry. like quite explicitly.

So the federal government was never supposed to function or have any power at all?

it had all sorts of powers. just not the ones you guys seem to want. but those were left out on purpose.

You can't have coordination of lower units through an upper unit unless the upper unit has at least some power.

so we lost the revolutionary war, then?

no, it was scrapped because a bunch of people were not really down with the revolution. they wanted to centralize power back into the hands of the local gentry. like quite explicitly.

Which is funny, because the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution. But let's not let petty facts get in the way of a good talking point.

it had all sorts of powers.
Name three.

I don't know if that's entirely true. Our "tribes" these days are expanded quite a bit and now include all sorts of cultural backgrounds. In our society, you have to make an actual effort not to be exposed to multiple ethnicities and cultural backgrounds and not to have a social group or "tribe" that includes them.

Well, yes. We've extended it more towards nations and national identity rather than ethnicities alone. The instincts are still there, however. I merely use the term tribal because it's the most...encompassing term I can think of for any one group, no matter how large or small. The point is that the group associates with members of that group and prioritizes it over others.


That's unfair to everyone. And it isn't affirmative action. When affirmative action was begun, there were such programs and people realized then that they were counter-productive. Affirmative action these days doesn't involve elevating less qualified anything. At most, a minority may be given priority in the instance that there is a single opening, and both a minority and majority are competing for it. In other words, minority status may be used as a tiebreaker.

I still think it's unfair to use it as a tiebreaker, but that is certainly fairer than I thought was happening. Doesn't surprise me that I was using outdated information. It's good that you corrected me on that, and I thank you for it.

(See, people? It's not that hard to admit when you're wrong, and it makes everything better!)


Hard to tell exactly. Very few of his old newsletters are on the web in their entirety anymore. The Daily KOS (which I just linked) found some more, I believe.

His "being born in the US shouldn't make you a US citizen" policy makes me a bit suspicious of racism as well, especially given the other statements.

Yes, it does make me suspicious as well, especially since that goes against the Fourteenth Amendment.

So the federal government was never supposed to function or have any power at all?

Sounds like the Congress under the AoC!

A person who writes things such as "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." is no racist.

To the contrary, that sort of statement is indeed quite racist.

Ron Paul is expressing his opinion that the real racists are not his friends, the Stormfront Neo-Nazis and far-right white supremacists, but the evil liberals advocating pro-diversity policies.

After all, we mustn't undermine the white privilege that protects all the decent people from the overwhelmingly criminal Black mass....

:rolleyes:

Which is funny, because the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution. But let's not let petty facts get in the way of a good talking point.

LMAO!!!

Okay so Ron Paul is not a racist. He says that because of the racial riots in L.A. white people can't help thinking that black people are bad. But then he says that its not fair to think that way. And he calls the rioters barbarians, not the black people. This article is not racist.

Okay so Ron Paul is not a racist. He says that because of the racial riots in L.A. white people can't help thinking that black people are bad. But then he says that its not fair to think that way. And he calls the rioters barbarians, not the black people. This article is not racist.

So I guess what the others here are telling you is not seeking in?

So I guess what the others here are telling you is not seeking in?

I mean, I'm trying to understand where this is coming from, but I see no evidence that Ron Paul is a racist.

Name three.

establishing embassies, running a post office, and declaring war. also, regulating standards of weights and measure, entering into treaties, and resolving disputes between states.

Which is funny, because the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution.

Not really. There was an overlap, yes. But it was not the same group of people.

establishing embassies, running a post office, and declaring war.
None of which it could actually do.

I mean, I'm trying to understand where this is coming from, but I see no evidence that Ron Paul is a racist.

I know of at least one link that shows that he was.

So I guess what the others here are telling you is not seeking in?

The sweet song of irony is sung again!

it had all sorts of powers. just not the ones you guys seem to want. but those were left out on purpose.

(a) A unit that can't even get the funds it needs to function won't, well, function.

(b) "Powers" that can't be enforced aren't "powers" at all. They are lip service. As an analogy, it would be like telling the mods around here that they have the power to ban posters, but not actually giving them any mechanism to do so and, instead, allowing the posters themselves to decide whether or not to leave when the mods "banned" them.

Yes, these things were left out on purpose. They didn't want a powerful central government because the states didn't want to give up their autonomy. However, they gave the federal government so little power that it was essentially useless. When this error became obvious, they changed the system.

so we lost the revolutionary war, then?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? The Articles of Confederation didn't do anything to help win the war. The states were exactly as involved as they wanted to be. The Articles didn't make them any more or less involved, didn't require them to provide any troops or money for the war.

I mean, I'm trying to understand where this is coming from, but I see no evidence that Ron Paul is a racist.

Then you didn't read it. Did you miss the part where he outright states that only 5% of the entire black population holds "sensible" political views? What about the point at which he states that black youths grow up on the streets and should all be tried as adults at 13? Or the multiple points at which he blames the black community as a whole for both the LA riots and just about all crime?

How about his statements that no white parents ever allow their children to make racist statements - that only a black parent would allow it?

This one's nice: "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. "

He characterizes all the blacks in LA as being on public assistance.

Not to mention his insistence, for some odd reason, that only black people participated in the looting.

Which is funny, because the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution. But let's not let petty facts get in the way of a good talking point.

no, they weren't. go check the names.

no, they weren't. go check the names.

How about you post the list of names instead? You're the one making the claim.

How about you post the list of names instead? You're the one making the claim.

which claim is that?

Then you didn't read it. Did you miss the part where he outright states that only 5% of the entire black population holds "sensible" political views? What about the point at which he states that black youths grow up on the streets and should all be tried as adults at 13? Or the multiple points at which he blames the black community as a whole for both the LA riots and just about all crime?

Black people are responsible for the L.A. riots. The black people in L.A. attacked and killed whites. That is totally racist.

Ron Paul never says that black people are inferior to whites, or that black people are dumb or primitive. He does seem to hate welfare though.

Black people are responsible for the L.A. riots.

Not exclusively, nor were only white people harmed.

Ron Paul never says that black people are inferior to whites, or that black people are dumb or primitive. He does seem to hate welfare though.

No, just that the community as a whole is lazy, wants to live off of others, wants to "steal" from others, is criminal or semi-criminal, that only a tiny percentage have "sensible" political views, that black parents somehow encourage racism more than parents of other ethnciities and so on....

He may not say, "Black people are inferior, dumb, and primitive," but he certainly and intentionally suggests it.

which claim is that?

The claim that the people were different.

Not really. There was an overlap, yes. But it was not the same group of people.

as i recall, it comes out to a fairly tiny group involved in both. like 4 or 5 guys. and some of those were not exactly what you'd call enthusiastic proponents of the articles in the first place.

The claim that the people were different.

well, if you'll recall all the way back to, what, 4 posts ago in this particular subthread, you'll see that i made that as a counterclaim to CF's original assertion that "the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution." it seems that if there is a burden of proof to be born, its not on me.

but hey, i'm a nice guy, so here you go:
delegates to the constitutional convention (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html)
signers of the articles (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Sigs)

well, if you'll recall all the way back to, what, 4 posts ago in this particular subthread, you'll see that i made that as a counterclaim to CF's original assertion that "the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution." it seems that if there is a burden of proof to be born, its not on me.

but hey, i'm a nice guy, so here you go:
delegates to the constitutional convention (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html)
signers of the articles (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Sigs)
Thank you. Interesting stuff.

Thank you. Interesting stuff.

no prob.

one thing i'd really like to see happen in usia is for us to stop talking about 'the founding fathers' as if they formed some monolithic group that acted in a sort of instantaneous revolutionary instant, after which george washington became president. it's really damaging to understanding the nature of the revolution and the factions involved in it and its aftermath.

well, if you'll recall all the way back to, what, 4 posts ago in this particular subthread, you'll see that i made that as a counterclaim to CF's original assertion that "the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution." it seems that if there is a burden of proof to be born, its not on me.

but hey, i'm a nice guy, so here you go:
delegates to the constitutional convention (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html)
signers of the articles (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Sigs)

'Free Soviets'?

Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're talking to? An ignorant populace? Wait, you are.

Not me. I know about Communism. I've the 'Black Book', and I've read it. I've read that and more. 'Communism' is an anathema towards human nature. It's a wicked, vicious and CHILDISH idealogy.

'Free Soviets'?

Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're talking to? An ignorant populace? Wait, you are.

Not me. I know about Communism. I've the 'Black Book', and I've read it. I've read that and more. 'Communism' is an anathema towards human nature. It's a wicked, vicious and CHILDISH idealogy.

Oh please. His name is just a name. It's not meant as depicting Soviet-style communism as a good system. :rolleyes:

Next you'll be saying that Dempublicents has multiple personality disorder.

'Free Soviets'?

Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're talking to? An ignorant populace? Wait, you are.

Not me. I know about Communism. I've the 'Black Book', and I've read it. I've read that and more. 'Communism' is an anathema towards human nature. It's a wicked, vicious and CHILDISH idealogy.

Out of curiosity, do you know what "free soviets" references?

Out of curiosity, do you know what "free soviets" references?

Wait, it actually references something?

Wait, it actually references something?

Perhaps he's giving them away?

Perhaps he's giving them away?

free as in beer, good idea.

Wait, it actually references something?

Well, obviously I can't be certain of FS's intent, but I'm pretty sure it's a reference to the Makhnovists.

"Free soviets" as opposed to soviets controlled by the centralized authority of the Bolsheviks... hardly a matter of support for Stalinist ideology.

Well, obviously I can't be certain of FS's intent, but I'm pretty sure it's a reference to the Makhnovists.

yup - so you can be certain now (well, as certain as you can ever be about such things...)

Well, obviously I can't be certain of FS's intent, but I'm pretty sure it's a reference to the Makhnovists.

"Free soviets" as opposed to soviets controlled by the centralized authority of the Bolsheviks... hardly a matter of support for Stalinist ideology.
Ooooh. Now I understand. Thank you.

well, if you'll recall all the way back to, what, 4 posts ago in this particular subthread, you'll see that i made that as a counterclaim to CF's original assertion that "the people who devised the Articles of Confederation were, by and large, the people who later devised the Constitution." it seems that if there is a burden of proof to be born, its not on me.

but hey, i'm a nice guy, so here you go:
delegates to the constitutional convention (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html)
signers of the articles (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Sigs)

Well, looks like I was wrong. Learn something new every day.

I mean, I'm trying to understand where this is coming from, but I see no evidence that Ron Paul is a racist.

Of course, you see no evidence that the Confederacy was a racist institution either.

And you see no evidence that statements that James Watson has admitted were racist and erroneous are racist and erroneous.

You have a special kind of "color-blindness."