NationStates Jolt Archive

someone finally got around to tracking down ron paul's old newsletters (last summer i found out they had some in madison, but never found the time to get up there to check it out myself). and they sure do paint a pretty picture.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca


Angry White Man
by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.

As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
...
South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
...
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Congressman William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
...
The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims."
...
The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."
...
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."

i've quoted a bunch, just in case crazed paulians try to knock out the website. they do the internet swarm thing pretty effectively any time his name is mentioned, after all.

anyways, ron paul for president!!!!1!

Ron Paul fans, "Loose Change" beleivers, "Masons will put microchips in people" Fearers, Theocracy advocates, Rednecks who want "State Rights" (To oppress faggots), Absolute Capitalists, and people who spend half their time bitching about taxes.

Quite a bunch of loonies.

I get quite sick of the Paultards on the internet.

(Especially Youtube, they spam almost EVERY FREAKING VIDEO with a "Vote Ron Paul" comment)

Ah those fanboys. A breed of their own they are. I prefer to call them "rontards". Retards is too much of a compliment.

Aah, all we need now is a few Paulbots...pity ever since Iowa they've crawled back into their burrows.

haha, what a nutter. I love this one bit:

"Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little." (emphasis added)


Never have I seen a less subtle "But I don't hate [group X], some of my best friends are [members of group X!]" :p

Paultards

Paulbots

"rontards".

It seems that we need to find a good word to describe these masses. I like my word, but my peers also have good words. Whatever shall we do...

It seems that we need to find a good word to describe these masses. I like my word, but my peers also have good words. Whatever shall we do...
Ronpaulbottard? Ronpaultardbot?

I'm partial to paulbot, myself.

Perhaps a poll is in order?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547122 - for the poll.

Now let's not hijack this thread. :)

Never have I seen a less subtle "But I don't hate [group X], some of my best friends are [members of group X!]" :p

yeah, typically you don't see the "i don't hate x, but some of my best friends are self-hating x's and they must have their reasons" formation

Ron Paul fans, "Loose Change" beleivers, "Masons will put microchips in people" Fearers, Theocracy advocates, Rednecks who want "State Rights" (To oppress faggots), Absolute Capitalists, and people who spend half their time bitching about taxes.

Quite a bunch of loonies.

I get quite sick of the Paultards on the internet.

(Especially Youtube, they spam almost EVERY FREAKING VIDEO with a "Vote Ron Paul" comment)

I am an absolute capitalist. I hate Ron Paul. Ending ALL free trade agreements and treaties? This guy is nothing more than a racist, isolationist sensationalist moron.

No wonder why Stormfront loves him so much. After all, they seem to be under the impression that America will become their white homeland and that only Paul has the magic ability to end the Jewish Illuminati Communist/Capitalist Government Israel Corporate North American Union One World New World Order 9/11 Oil Conspiracy that only they seem to be aware of

hey, don't we still have some ronnies around here? i want to see the mental gymnastics involved in an attempted defense.

I think all the [insert up to date term for RP supporters] are in hiding after the glorious dawkter paul didn't pwn the Iowa caucus.

Does anyone have any stats about what integration did to the South African economy?

It's pretty unfair to make a judgement based on something they used to think 15 years ago.

It seems that we need to find a good word to describe these masses. I like my word, but my peers also have good words. Whatever shall we do...

Create a thread and vote on it :D

It's pretty unfair to make a judgement based on something they used to think 15 years ago.

Not really. You can use what they thought to try to understand the thought process that lead them to what they think now.

Unless of course they think the same thing now as then.

It's pretty unfair to make a judgement based on something they used to think 15 years ago.

that's not what the paul campaign is claiming. they are claiming that at night, elves would come and write the various incarnations of the ron paul reactionary retard report. poor ron had nothing to do with it at all; he didn't even ever read it. in fact, this just now is the first he's even heard of these awful things, and this report only coincidentally bears his name at all.

Not really. You can use what they thought to try to understand the thought process that lead them to what they think now.


People can have revelations, and totally change their perspectives and their outlook on life, including their reasoning. It's happened to me.

that's not what the paul campaign is claiming. they are claiming that at night, elves would come and write the various incarnations of the ron paul reactionary retard report. poor ron had nothing to do with it at all; he didn't even ever read it. in fact, this just now is the first he's even heard of these awful things, and this report only coincidentally bears his name at all.

So he's ashamed of what he said, and is trying to sweep it under the carpet to get votes. I would be too.

People can have revelations, and totally change their perspectives and their outlook on life, including their reasoning. It's happened to me.
That and you can examine how honest they've been about their past. I mean, I don't know if the good doctor has made any claims about what his life was like
So he's ashamed of what he said, and is trying to sweep it under the carpet to get votes. I would be too.

Doesn't say much for his honesty though.

Doesn't say much for his honesty though.

Well, this is a given for politicians, so... meh.

Paul being part of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons) group is another interesting thing about him.

These links say everything:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-crucial-tv-388512p404.html

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_biggest_home_made_political_signs_ever.htm

Hey, Im a first-time poster (i think, though I know my post numberss will be in single digits), longtime NS Player, occasional reader (of this forum, and 10-month (or so) Ron Paul supporter. these newsletters have been brought up over and over again.

when I first learned of them, I was upset because this guy had a platform that I agreed with overall, and also because this didn't fit the guy in my opinion of him after everything id seen. it was for that reason I looked into the issue. they were not written by him. it is not his writing style at all. heck, some of the opinions written in the newsletters (besides the hateful stuff) weren't even his political opinions of the time. even Eric Dondero, who is a disgruntled ex-aide of Dr Paul, has said that the newsletters weren't written by him and that Ron Paul isn't racist or anti-semitic, and that guy has been hating on Ron Paul for a long time. Look, Ron Paul went back to delivering babies after (temporarily, obviously) retiring from Congress.

he didn't write those and thats the truth, and if you don't beleive him, then don't believe him. however, don't believe a smear against someone just because you don't like the candidate or his political opinions. and that works vise versa too.

anyway, my last point is that Ron Paul is not a very good leader in the traditional (in my opinion overrated) way. just like with a lot of his policies, he doesn't like telling people what to do. he has his principles that he stands by, but if someone he trusts (and maybe shouldn't [and definitely shouldn't have in the case of newsletter writers]) does something, he isn't very good with overseeing it.

I do beleive it was stupid to let others write it under his name, and I wish he had stopped it, but if the only thing you can smear a guy on is that he trusted the wrong people to write a newsletter for him, then Im happy with that (and i dont mean the newsletters, just in case anyone happens to take what I say out of context).

These links say everything:

*snips URL*

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_biggest_home_made_political_signs_ever.htm

Those signs make my eyes bleed. I cry blood when I see those.

While I find the man to be anything but libertarian, I find his fanboys to be the most obnoxious breed yet.

-snip-

Welcome to NS!

Not to be rude but please use paragraphs in long posts or many people will skip over them.

About your actual post: We don't have enough evidence to completely rule out that he wrote them, without that there will always be attacks on him, whether they are true or not.

I personally think he did write them.

* SNIP*
Wall of text alert!

You know, friend, paragraphs are not out to get you. They make it easier for you to convey your ideas. I think you might want to break it into paragraphs for easier reading. I want to debate you but the lack of paragraphs is a hindrance.

Ron Paul is godlike!



As in, he has some strange ideas himself, but it's his fan club that gets really annoying.

People can have revelations, and totally change their perspectives and their outlook on life, including their reasoning. It's happened to me.
If Ron Paul came out and talked about these things, explaining how they got into his newsletter and why he used to consider them acceptable, then proceeded to apologize and told everyone how and why he changed his views, then I would believe he really has changed his perspectives.

But the way he's trying to hide them now makes me think he still holds the same views and doesn't want anyone finding out.

someone finally got around to tracking down ron paul's old newsletters (last summer i found out they had some in madison, but never found the time to get up there to check it out myself). and they sure do paint a pretty picture.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca



i've quoted a bunch, just in case crazed paulians try to knock out the website. they do the internet swarm thing pretty effectively any time his name is mentioned, after all.

anyways, ron paul for president!!!!1!

Message to "Ron Paul" supporters (I.E. Racist/Chistian fundamenatists): OMG

And this:anyways, ron paul for president!!!!1! Run away........!!!!!!

they were not written by him.

you know, if i had a newsletter going out as if it was my personal work, with no other writers named, and in a paper bearing my name as it's title, i think i would at least check up on who was writing things from time to time. especially since i would have hired them and be paying their salary, etc. i would especially do so if i had run for president of usia as the libertarian party candidate during this time period.

magic racist ghostwriting elves being responsible merely make paul into an incompetent right-wing fucktard. this may or may not be an improvement.

Rednecks who want "State Rights" (To oppress faggots)(Especially Youtube, they spam almost EVERY FREAKING VIDEO with a "Vote Ron Paul" comment)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmSLfWRCVGQ:D

ooh, there are pdf scans of this stuff.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

check out what came before the bit quoted in the article about getting a gun because the 'animals' are coming:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportoct1992.pdf
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

magic racist ghostwriting elves...



Write a right-wing newsletter
???
Profit!

ooh, there are pdf scans of this stuff.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

check out what came before the bit quoted in the article about getting a gun because the 'animals' are coming:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/reportoct1992.pdf
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

I bet I can guess why that 'ex-' is there.

Write a right-wing newsletter
???
Profit!


More like:

Write a right-wing newsletter
???
Invade the Dominican Republic
Profit!

someone finally got around to tracking down ron paul's old newsletters (last summer i found out they had some in madison, but never found the time to get up there to check it out myself). and they sure do paint a pretty picture.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca



i've quoted a bunch, just in case crazed paulians try to knock out the website. they do the internet swarm thing pretty effectively any time his name is mentioned, after all.

anyways, ron paul for president!!!!1!

I'm not for Ron Paul, but I would like to note how the article states "the writer, presumably Paul", meaning that they have no fucking idea and are more than likely slapping Paul's name to a collection of random newsletters.

If he really believed in a race war, then becoming a libertarian was probably the most dumbshitted move ever.

I'm not for Ron Paul, but I would like to note how the article states "the writer, presumably Paul", meaning that they have no fucking idea and are more than likely slapping Paul's name to a collection of random newsletters.

no, it means that the writing appeared in "the ron paul something something", was written in the first person, had no other identifying information given for it, and was not immediately denounced as a gross distortion of ron paul's beliefs with the writer being publicly named and sacked.

seriously, magic racist ghostwriting elves do not make this go away.

If he really believed in a race war, then becoming a libertarian was probably the most dumbshitted move ever.

nah, the liberts have always been full of nazis, monarchists, militia gun nuts, and assorted other right-wing retards.

Write a right-wing newsletter
???
Profit!


i'll bet that phase 2 actually was 'collect underpants'

If he really believed in a race war, then becoming a libertarian was probably the most dumbshitted move ever.

and yet he believes in silly policy's like children born in the US not being American citizens hmmmm

Ron Paul did not win New Hampshire.

Nobody won in New Hampshire yet. But Paul hasn't a hope.

Um WRONG!!! McCain has been declared the winner on the Republican Side.

Nobody won in New Hampshire yet. But Paul hasn't a hope.

its so nice when democracy works :)

Ron Paul did not win New Hampshire.

Nobody won in New Hampshire yet. But Paul hasn't a hope.

That.....is fricking insane.

Then again, this is New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_State_Project)

hey, aren't we a couple years past their original "20k by X or we quit" date?

Ron Paul did not win New Hampshire.

So far he's doing the best of all the "Snowball's Chance" candidates. Much better than Fred Thompson. Even Ron Paul can beat Fred Thompson **shudders**

Then again, this is New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_State_Project)

Then again, this is New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_State_Project)

What's so bad about that?

This (http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html) disagrees with you. But maybe all the votes are in and that site is just really really slow. Where are you getting your results from?

Sorry but CNN, Fox, Yahoo and CBSnews all say that McCain won the state of New Hampshire.

Um WRONG!!! McCain has been declared the winner on the Republican Side.

This (http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html) disagrees with you. But maybe all the votes are in and that site is just really really slow. Where are you getting your results from?

Um, how about waiting for the primary to get done and let the results speak for themselves. Patience, get some.

Um, how about waiting for the primary to get done and let the results speak for themselves. Patience, get some.

I do not even vote in primaries. Why? Because they are a complete waste of time the way it is done right now.

Yes, I know.

CBSnews are reporting him as the projected winner here (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/). Ditto CNN here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

It seems silly to declare a winner before even a third of the votes are in. And Fox made their declaration at 13%.

When something is obvious, why not call it?

Sorry but CNN, Fox, Yahoo and CBSnews all say that McCain won the state of New Hampshire.

Yes, I know.
FOX News declared the Arizona senator the winner with 13 percent of precincts reporting just 15 minutes after polls closed.
CBSnews are reporting him as the projected winner here (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/). Ditto CNN here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH).
With votes counted from 26 percent of the state's precincts, McCain was winning 37 percent of the vote, Romney had 28 and Huckabee 12. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had 9 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul 8.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

It seems silly to declare a winner before even a third of the votes are in. And Fox made their declaration at 13%.

When something is obvious, why not call it?

Refer to the 2000 Elections, when Gore ran against Bush. All the networks were saying Gore had a clear lead and would win. Suddenly FOX comes up and declares that Bush is the winner and all the channels switch over and it is learned that there needs to be a recount...

Just because it may be obvious, doesn't mean it will be true in the end. After all, it's obvious someone will win.

anyway, my last point is that Ron Paul is not a very good leader in the traditional (in my opinion overrated) way. just like with a lot of his policies, he doesn't like telling people what to do.

LOL. Mr. Authoritarian doesn't like telling people what to do?

Seriously, that's so ridiculous I can't even laugh at it.

I do beleive it was stupid to let others write it under his name, and I wish he had stopped it, but if the only thing you can smear a guy on is that he trusted the wrong people to write a newsletter for him, then Im happy with that (and i dont mean the newsletters, just in case anyone happens to take what I say out of context).

So it is your belief that Ron Paul allowed racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, inaccurate trash to be put out in his name for years, across multiple different publications and he never noticed?

Wow. You really think he is completely incompetent, don't you?

He's also a plagiarist in your mind, consistently failing to credit the actual writers while claiming the work as his own.... (Well, until it actually hurt him, at which point he decided it was actually written by someone else).

He's also a plagiarist in your mind, consistently failing to credit the actual writers while claiming the work as his own.... (Well, until it actually hurt him, at which point he decided it was actually written by someone else).

hmm, i wonder who would sue me if i reprinted copies of the ron paul reactionary retard report to sell, what with the being written by elves at night and all...

I'm pretty surprised to read about the racial/gay slams in those letters... I support Ron Paul and I was pretty disappointed to read that.

The conspirecy theories don't bother me, mostly because I believe alot of them (let the flames begin). :p

However he is the only candidate that is concerned about the growth of the fedral government and loss of personal freedoms, so he still has my support.

LOL. Mr. Authoritarian doesn't like telling people what to do?

Seriously, that's so ridiculous I can't even laugh at it.



So it is your belief that Ron Paul allowed racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, inaccurate trash to be put out in his name for years, across multiple different publications and he never noticed?

Wow. You really think he is completely incompetent, don't you?

He's also a plagiarist in your mind, consistently failing to credit the actual writers while claiming the work as his own.... (Well, until it actually hurt him, at which point he decided it was actually written by someone else).

Authoritarian? Holy crap, do you really beleive that? Im gonna assume that you are liberal, right? Maybe Im wrong, but, anyway, if Im right, then you are basically the left-wing equivalent of the anti-Ron "conservatives" who claim that RP is a socialist. Its a BS claim. Can you tell me one thing he has voted for that is authoritarian? He has consistently voted against all forms of big government, especially those than attack our civil liberties.

Now, do I beleive that Ron Paul is incompetent? No, but he at some times has been a little naive. Also, he was busy delivering babies during the times these were written. People that know what they are talking about (and arent Ron Paul supporters, fyi) have agreed that they werent written in his writing style. Ron Paul has never spoken anything similar to these hateful things written.

Now as to your ridiculous last paragraph, I could say that the writer actually was committing identity fraud, but that would be almost as stupid as claiming plagiarism. its called ghostwriting. go read a dictionary. look, even Eric Dondero, who is a hateful ex-aide of Ron Paul, has stated that they were ghostwritten.

But anyway, unless someone who cares more about the truth (whether or not the believe RP) than attacking someone the disagree with posts a response or rebuttal, then Im probably done with this thread.

What's so bad about that?

One would expect Ron Paul to do exceptionally well (for an otherwise irrelevant candidate) due to the location of the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

It seems that we need to find a good word to describe these masses. I like my word, but my peers also have good words. Whatever shall we do...

How about an anagram? "Our Plan" ... or "Lunar Op"

Nah, paulbots is best. "-tard" isn't going to age well.

Nah, paulbots is best. "-tard" isn't going to age well.

I'm pretty sure robots would take issue with that as well; does anyone want to be used as an analogy for a fanatical Paul supporter? For that matter, Randroid doesn't look like it will last much longer either...

It's pretty unfair to make a judgement based on something they used to think 15 years ago.

Why, he wasn't a child when he wrote that...

People don't change much.

Why, he wasn't a child when he wrote that...

People don't change much.

well, they can. but we'd need some evidence for the change. it's not like he wasn't already a political figure during the decades he was putting this stuff out. has his voting record changed significantly if we compare his early career to more recent times?

I'm pretty sure robots would take issue with that as well; does anyone want to be used as an analogy for a fanatical Paul supporter? For that matter, Randroid doesn't look like it will last much longer either...

Aren't we already using that one for Ayn Rand lovers?

It seems that we need to find a good word to describe these masses. I like my word, but my peers also have good words. Whatever shall we do...Ronbots. It even makes sense, since it still looks somewhat like the original word.

Authoritarian? Holy crap, do you really beleive that? Im gonna assume that you are liberal, right? Maybe Im wrong, but, anyway, if Im right, then you are basically the left-wing equivalent of the anti-Ron "conservatives" who claim that RP is a socialist. Its a BS claim.Yes, indeed it is a BS claim. Left-wing and liberal are pretty much mutually exclusive.

However he is the only candidate that is concerned about the growth of the fedral government and loss of personal freedoms, so he still has my support.

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters never bother to look at his actual record? It's pretty obvious that he isn't at all concerned about loss of personal freedoms. In fact, he works quite hard to ensure such losses. The fact that he thinks you should lose your personal freedoms to your state government rather than the federal government doesn't make those losses any better.


Authoritarian? Holy crap, do you really beleive that?

Yes, his records and his own statements make it quite clear that he thinks a number of individual rights should be removed and the authority to make personal decisions handed over to the state governments. Well, to the state governments except when he decides to part with his own stated ideals and hand them over to the federal government instead.

Im gonna assume that you are liberal, right?

Depends on who you ask, but no, I wouldn't say that.

Maybe Im wrong, but, anyway, if Im right, then you are basically the left-wing equivalent of the anti-Ron "conservatives" who claim that RP is a socialist. Its a BS claim. Can you tell me one thing he has voted for that is authoritarian? He has consistently voted against all forms of big government, especially those than attack our civil liberties.

He has proposed - time and time again - the "We the People Act," which is designed to remove protections on our individual liberties by making sure that our state governments can infringe upon religious freedom, the right to privacy, and equality under the law at will. He has made it clear that he believes state governments should have the authority to control our bodies, who we have sex with and how, and to treat some of us as second-class citizens.

Now, do I beleive that Ron Paul is incompetent? No, but he at some times has been a little naive. Also, he was busy delivering babies during the times these were written.

So busy that he couldn't read the occasional 8-10 page newsletter? I know doctors - even busier ones than your typical OB/GYN. They have enough time to read and to check up on things put out in their name.

If he really went 10 or so years without ever noticing the things put out in his name, he is incompetent, plain and simple.

People that know what they are talking about (and arent Ron Paul supporters, fyi) have agreed that they werent written in his writing style. Ron Paul has never spoken anything similar to these hateful things written.

Sure he has. And his votes sometimes bear them out as well. He's made his homophobia, for instance, quite clear, both in his votes and his comments.

Now as to your ridiculous last paragraph, I could say that the writer actually was committing identity fraud, but that would be almost as stupid as claiming plagiarism. its called ghostwriting. go read a dictionary. look, even Eric Dondero, who is a hateful ex-aide of Ron Paul, has stated that they were ghostwritten.

In ghost writing, the supposed author has input into the process. You claim that this didn't happen.

But anyway, unless someone who cares more about the truth (whether or not the believe RP) than attacking someone the disagree with posts a response or rebuttal, then Im probably done with this thread.

If you cared about the truth, you'd actually look into Ron Paul's record.

Authoritarian? Holy crap, do you really beleive that?

it's true. he is an outright authoritarian - he just prefers more local authoritarian power (though still more centralized that your typical authoritarian 'libert').

Also, he was busy delivering babies during the times these were written.

and/or being in congress and running for president on the lp ticket. this went on for years.

People that know what they are talking about (and arent Ron Paul supporters, fyi) have agreed that they werent written in his writing style. Ron Paul has never spoken anything similar to these hateful things written.

Now as to your ridiculous last paragraph, I could say that the writer actually was committing identity fraud, but that would be almost as stupid as claiming plagiarism. its called ghostwriting.

of course, the point of ghostwriting is that the ghostwriter's words are your words, in an official and morally binding sense. especially if you pay them to keep writing them for years without loudly and publicly outing and denouncing them for writing trash that you would never in a million years have said yourself.

So fucking what?

It speaks poorly of someone that the white supremacists at stormfront support him/her.

These links say everything:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-crucial-tv-388512p404.html

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_biggest_home_made_political_signs_ever.htm

So fucking what?

It speaks poorly of someone that the white supremacists at stormfront support him/her.

Whatever. Its not like Ron Paul is one.

It speaks poorly of someone that the white supremacists at stormfront support him/her.

This is especially true when we can go back to his newsletters and find out why...

Whatever. Its not like Ron Paul is one.

You wouldn't get that impression from reading his newsletters.

Not to mention the fact that Paul's consistent "states' rights" philosophy on civil rights issues would, if actually put into action, give bigots of all stripes much, much more power to enforce their viewpoints through government action.

It speaks poorly of someone that the white supremacists at stormfront support him/her.

I've been wondering if the lack of a Nazi invasion has anything to do with the myriad ronbots around.


Though I've been a most infrequent visitor over the past 1½ years, my view may be skewed.

This is especially true when we can go back to his newsletters and find out why...

Especially since he seems to love covertly pandering to them, what with using many of their own shibboleths and everything.

Yeah, the link isn't working.

I knew there was something wrong with Ron Paul, now I see it's.... everything about him.

It seems fine to me.

Though there is also the Google cache ;)

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Xn0X-U5TQSIJ:www.tnr.com/politics/story.html%3Fid%3De2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca+Angry+White+Man&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca



i've quoted a bunch, just in case crazed paulians try to knock out the website. they do the internet swarm thing pretty effectively any time his name is mentioned, after all.

Yeah, the link isn't working.

I knew there was something wrong with Ron Paul, now I see it's.... everything about him.

I got all excited when it looked like we had a Paulbot in this thread. I've been honestly surprised that we haven't already been swarmed with them, since this seems like just the type of place they'd love.

Maybe if we leave out some bait...

RON PAUL IS A RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, LYING AUTHORITARIAN WHO, IF ELECTED, WILL RUIN AMERICA.

It seems fine to me.


Hmm, now it does to me. Maybe it's under attack. Or maybe my connection is the suck.

I got all excited when it looked like we had a Paulbot in this thread. I've been honestly surprised that we haven't already been swarmed with them, since this seems like just the type of place they'd love.

Maybe if we leave out some bait...

RON PAUL IS A RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, LYING AUTHORITARIAN WHO, IF ELECTED, WILL RUIN AMERICA.

This thread was not attacked by paulbots, though we are meant to believe it was. Paulbots attack in swarms, to better mask their true numbers, this thread has only seen two. No, I think there is another force at work here...

But make no mistake, they'll be back, and in greater numbers.

Man you guys really hate ron paul.

we are talking about a guy who delivered over 4,000 babies at a charity hospital. And some of those babies were black so hes not a racist. If anything, ron paul is a model citizen and he shares my view of government. Now I'm sure his point of view seems devoid of intellectualism to some of you, but I implore you to tolerate those very ideas that offend you and treat ron paul followers with enough respect to explain to them why they are wrong in their beliefs because all this name calling will only further polarize us.

Man you guys really hate ron paul.

we are talking about a guy who delivered over 4,000 babies at a charity hospital. And some of those babies were black so hes not a racist. If anything, ron paul is a model citizen and he shares my view of government. Now I'm sure his point of view seems devoid of intellectualism to some of you, but I implore you to tolerate those very ideas that offend you and treat ron paul followers with enough respect to explain to them why they are wrong in their beliefs because all this name calling will only further polarize us.
Yay! We got one!

*hugs*

Man you guys really hate ron paul.

Only because he's a racist, paranoid, hateful little lying sonofabitch who gets entirely too much credit and air time.

we are talking about a guy who delivered over 4,000 babies at a charity hospital.

Wow, a politician kissing babies asses. Why might he do that? For votes and support? Nah, he must be a saintly figure of decency and kindness. Also there's this bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale and I'm thinking of buying it.

And some of those babies were black so hes not a racist.

Ah yes, the "I can't be racist if I ever do anything good for any black persons" defense. Right up there with the "I'm not racist, I have black friends" defense, and the "I didn't kill six million Jews, it's a conspiracy" defense.

If anything, ron paul is a model citizen and he shares my view of government.

He might espouse your idea of government, but since he's a known liar that doesn't even mean much.

Now I'm sure his point of view seems devoid of intellectualism to some of you, but I implore you to tolerate those very ideas that offend you

Yeah, how about... no. I'm a Jew, and last time people like me "tolerated" the ideas of people like him we wound up being turned into lampshades.

and treat ron paul followers with enough respect to explain to them why they are wrong in their beliefs because all this name calling will only further polarize us.

That's a good point, but why do I have to explain why bigotry, racism, hate and deception are wrong?

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate.
This is one of the most concerning points, that a fringe extremist has actually garnered some small level of legitimacy in mainstream American politics. I liked it better when your average Ron Paul advocate was an angry, lonely, late teenaged internet geek living in his (only an adolescent male could implicitly endorse Ron Paul’s hysterically reactionary attack on reproductive rights) parent’s basement.

This is one of the most concerning points, that a fringe extremist has actually garnered some small level of legitimacy in mainstream American politics.

exactly. people who serve as transmitters and legitimizers for the extreme right need to be identified, exposed, and ridiculed. to not do so is, in a very real sense, dangerous.

Man you guys really hate ron paul.

we are talking about a guy who delivered over 4,000 babies at a charity hospital. And some of those babies were black so hes not a racist. If anything, ron paul is a model citizen and he shares my view of government. Now I'm sure his point of view seems devoid of intellectualism to some of you, but I implore you to tolerate those very ideas that offend you and treat ron paul followers with enough respect to explain to them why they are wrong in their beliefs because all this name calling will only further polarize us.Goering was kind to animals and helped the Jews that saved his sorry life after the Beer Hall Putsch escape. Guess that makes him a great guy, huh?

The idea why showing that someone isn't pure evil proves that they are good is beyond me.

exactly. people who serve as transmitters and legitimizers for the extreme right need to be identified, exposed, and ridiculed. to not do so is, in a very real sense, dangerous.
I have watched my government and my country debate whether or not torture is an acceptable practice for us to be using. I watch my country debate whether or not children should be taught factual information in school. I watch my country debate whether or not all citizens should be equal under the law.

It horrifies me to see what is up for debate these days. The radical fringe has become so mainstream that we actually debate subjects that should never need to be debated in a civilized society. People are in love with the idea of having two sides to every issue, which is completely fucked up. If one side is arguing that it's bad to torture kittens to death in front of a kindergarten class, do you really need there to be another side arguing the "pro" side? Is that really a worthwhile debate?

Yay! We got one!

*hugs*

oh jeeze i walked right into it.

:rolleyes:

I have watched my government and my country debate whether or not torture is an acceptable practice for us to be using. I watch my country debate whether or not children should be taught factual information in school. I watch my country debate whether or not all citizens should be equal under the law.I can top this. I have watched my country reelect Bush. I lost a lot of faith in my country the day that happened, and my surprise to new instances of it bending lower has lessened considerably.

I got all excited when it looked like we had a Paulbot in this thread. I've been honestly surprised that we haven't already been swarmed with them, since this seems like just the type of place they'd love.

Maybe if we leave out some bait...

RON PAUL IS A RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, LYING AUTHORITARIAN WHO, IF ELECTED, WILL RUIN AMERICA.

Or lead it to glory...

I actually wasn't expecting my bait to work this well.

*preen*

Come on, you know you're irresistible. :D

Or lead it to glory...
I actually wasn't expecting my bait to work this well.

*preen*

I actually wasn't expecting my bait to work this well.

*preen*

I was just using your 2-sides to ever argument thing you were ranting on last page.


Seriously though, he wouldn't ruin America. We'd be a lot less involved overseas, which would save US lives and money. Along with all the reform in government agencies (namely cutting them).

I was just using your 2-sides to ever argument thing you were ranting on last page.


Seriously though, he wouldn't ruin America. We'd be a lot less involved overseas, which would save US lives and money. Along with all the reform in government agencies (namely cutting them).Which would cost them, in turn.

I was just using your 2-sides to ever argument thing you were ranting on last page.


Seriously though, he wouldn't ruin America. We'd be a lot less involved overseas, which would save US lives and money. Along with all the reform in government agencies (namely cutting them).

*chuckles* because nothing is going to save more human lives than getting rid of/privatizing the FDA

*chuckles* because nothing is going to save more human lives than getting rid of/privatizing the FDA

I didn't know he wanted to get rid of that, but whatev.

If elected, Ron Paul would probably only be able to get about 25% or so of what he wants done, which would benefit the nation greatly. He'd trim down the gov't, move away from imperialist policies, and ensure our sovereignty.

I didn't know he wanted to get rid of that, but whatev.

If elected, Ron Paul would probably only be able to get about 25% or so of what he wants done, which would benefit the nation greatly. He'd trim down the gov't, move away from imperialist policies, and ensure our sovereignty.

Can you explain how it would benefit the nation, or are we to rely on rhetoric?

Can you explain how it would benefit the nation, or are we to rely on rhetoric?We have to rely on rhetoric. In fact, I've read the exact same wording in another of his posts.

I actually wasn't expecting my bait to work this well.

*preen*

No need to toot your horn, dearie. :)

Maybe so. Hitler sure trimmed down the German government. With a Luger.

No. Just no. I refuse to be on the side of someone resorting to Godwins.

I know some of you insist that ron paul supporters are mindless zombies, or is it radical extremists? Either way, I implore you who insult ron paul to turn your focus on yourself and observe your knee-jerk reactions to opposing everything about ron paul, or your constant spout of insults and slander insisting that we are the radicals.

Can you explain how it would benefit the nation, or are we to rely on rhetoric?

Well, the gov't is too damn big, and is spending too much money. Paul trim the size of the gov't by overhauling, or cutting many programs, probably starting with ones that aren't achieving results and are pouring money down the drain. He'd lower taxes AND cut spending. Which is what most people have been saying they will do for years, but they never seem to cut spending.

So, a smaller, less intrusive government, with a sane foreign policy would emerge. That sounds good to me.

I didn't know he wanted to get rid of that, but whatev.

If elected, Ron Paul would probably only be able to get about 25% or so of what he wants done

So what, like only 25% of a race war? Only 25% genocide? Fuck Ron Paul.

He'd trim down the gov't,

Maybe so. Hitler sure trimmed down the German government. With a Luger.

move away from imperialist policies

Maybe so. Electing a lying, bigoted, paranoid idiot is too high a price for that gain, though.

, and ensure our sovereignty.

Red herring and irrelevant. Unless you subscribe to Ron Paul paranoia about how the other candidates will sell our souls/lands/jobs/women to Satan/Mexicans/Muslims/commies.

So what, like only 25% of a race war? Only 25% genocide? Fuck Ron Paul.



Maybe so. Hitler sure trimmed down the German government. With a Luger.



Maybe so. Electing a lying, bigoted, paranoid idiot is too high a price for that gain, though.



Red herring and irrelevant. Unless you subscribe to Ron Paul paranoia about how the other candidates will sell our souls/lands/jobs/women to Satan/Mexicans/Muslims/commies.

yavole mein heir, hile ron paul!

I know some of you insist that ron paul supporters are mindless zombies, or is it radical extremists? Either way, I implore you who insult ron paul to turn your focus on yourself and observe your knee-jerk reactions to opposing everything about ron paul, or your constant spout of insults and slander insisting that we are the radicals.

The implication that a forum full of people debating the merits (or lack thereof) of Ron Paul are all collectively knee-jerking is more than foolish, it's downright stupid.

I know some of you insist that ron paul supporters are mindless zombies, or is it radical extremists? Either way, I implore you who insult ron paul to turn your focus on yourself and observe your knee-jerk reactions to opposing everything about ron paul, or your constant spout of insults and slander insisting that we are the radicals.How is someone supporting a libertarian worldview not radical or extremist? Seriously?

I mean we might differ on whether we think it's good/bad, going to be successful/a colossal failure, but to claim libertarianism isn't extreme or radical is a sign of insanity, willful ignorance, or dishonesty.

Well, the gov't is too damn big, and is spending too much money. Paul trim the size of the gov't by overhauling, or cutting many programs, probably starting with ones that aren't achieving results and are pouring money down the drain. He'd lower taxes AND cut spending. Which is what most people have been saying they will do for years, but they never seem to cut spending.

So, a smaller, less intrusive government, with a sane foreign policy would emerge. That sounds good to me.

And in the process you'd have a large number of jobs cut, a large number of existing programs and departments cut with nothing to take their place, and general bureaucratic chaos until the dust settles.

Not to mention that Ron Paul isn't actually advocating libertarian policy, but states rights policy. You would have one smaller central government, and 50 state governments made stronger and more intrusive. That is something that should certainly be avoided at all costs.

I still haven't seen a list of programs to be cut, and what he plans to replace most of them, if anything. I still haven't seen anything substantive from you.

So what, like only 25% of a race war? Only 25% genocide? Fuck Ron Paul.

Maybe so. Hitler sure trimmed down the German government. With a Luger.

Maybe so. Electing a lying, bigoted, paranoid idiot is too high a price for that gain, though.

Red herring and irrelevant. Unless you subscribe to Ron Paul paranoia about how the other candidates will sell our souls/lands/jobs/women to Satan/Mexicans/Muslims/commies.

I don't believe Ron Paul has ever called for a race war, jackass.
Ron Paul is not Hitler.
Maybe a bit paranoid, but oh well. Everyone's got their quirks.
Uh, heard of the North American Union? That's scary shit. One of the milestones for that plan to go through is to destroy the value of the dollar, which has been happening lately. Even if it is a hoax, ensuring sovereignty is never bad.

The implication that a forum full of people debating the merits (or lack thereof) of Ron Paul are all collectively knee-jerking is more than foolish, it's downright stupid.

hey now I wasn't refering to everyone.

yavole mein heir, hile ron paul!Den kann man nicht heilen :D

hey now I wasn't refering to everyone.

You made a general statement. If you wanted to be specific, it might've been nice to actually be specific.

I don't believe Ron Paul has ever called for a race war, jackass.
Ron Paul is not Hitler.
Maybe a bit paranoid, but oh well. Everyone's got their quirks.
Uh, heard of the North American Union? That's scary shit. One of the milestones for that plan to go through is to destroy the value of the dollar, which has been happening lately. Even if it is a hoax, ensuring sovereignty is never bad.

agreed

Uh, heard of the North American Union? That's scary shit. One of the milestones for that plan to go through is to destroy the value of the dollar, which has been happening lately. Even if it is a hoax, ensuring sovereignty is never bad.:rolleyes:

No. Just no. I refuse to be on the side of someone resorting to Godwins.

"Resorting to Godwins" is a meaningless phrase. Godwin states that the probability of a thread involving a reference to Hitler or Nazism approaches 1 the longer the thread lives. Saying "resorting to Godwin" is like "resorting to the Gravitational constant" or "resorting to the fact that Ron Paul is a lot like a little Hitler."

And if you really can't handle "Godwins" then it's amazing you've lasted this long on the internet. Let alone a political forum of any kind.

"Resorting to Godwins" is a meaningless phrase. Godwin states that the probability of a thread involving a reference to Hitler or Nazism approaches 1 the longer the thread lives. Saying "resorting to Godwin" is like "resorting to the Gravitational constant" or "resorting to the fact that Ron Paul is a lot like a little Hitler."

And if you really can't handle "Godwins" then it's amazing you've lasted this long on the internet. Let alone a political forum of any kind.

Your references to Hitler and the Nazi party added nothing to this debate that could not have been better served with something less absurd. It's really surprising you've lasted at all on NSG making glaring mistakes of this sort.

You made a general statement. If you wanted to be specific, it might've been nice to actually be specific.

I mean, I said "some of you" as opposed to "all of you"

I dunno, maybe that was too vague.

How is someone supporting a libertarian worldview not radical or extremist? Seriously?

How can anyone claim that Ron Paul supports a libertarian worldview? Seriously?


Not to mention that Ron Paul isn't actually advocating libertarian policy, but states rights policy. You would have one smaller central government, and 50 state governments made stronger and more intrusive. That is something that should certainly be avoided at all costs.

Precisely.


Uh, heard of the North American Union? That's scary shit. One of the milestones for that plan to go through is to destroy the value of the dollar, which has been happening lately.

LOL. You're complaining about destruction of the value of the dollar, and then supporting a candidate who has tried, more than once, to make the dollar pretty much completely useless in a single bill?

I mean, I said "some of you" as opposed to "all of you"

I dunno, maybe that was too vague.

Ah, then I misread it. Apologies.

Still, I think you'd be surprised at how few of us are actually knee-jerking.

I don't believe Ron Paul has ever called for a race war, jackass.

OK, let me know when you've read the original post of the thread you're posting in.


Ron Paul is not Hitler.

No, he's just disconcertingly similar.


Maybe a bit paranoid, but oh well. Everyone's got their quirks.

Right, well that "quirk" is not one I wish to have for the guy in charge of the world's largest supply of nuclear weaponry.

Uh, heard of the North American Union? That's scary shit.

Yeah, it would sure scare me if I was both paranoid and ignorant.

One of the milestones for that plan to go through is to destroy the value of the dollar

Do you think spreading unsupported, ignorant fearmongering does anything but prove me right?

Even if it is a hoax, ensuring sovereignty is never bad.

So, for example, you would agree that ensuring the sovereignty of Nazi Germany was never a bad thing? It was just mounds of whole-grained goodness, that?

And in the process you'd have a large number of jobs cut, a large number of existing programs and departments cut with nothing to take their place, and general bureaucratic chaos until the dust settles.

Not to mention that Ron Paul isn't actually advocating libertarian policy, but states rights policy. You would have one smaller central government, and 50 state governments made stronger and more intrusive. That is something that should certainly be avoided at all costs.

I still haven't seen a list of programs to be cut, and what he plans to replace most of them, if anything. I still haven't seen anything substantive from you.

Find it out your own damn self. He'd cut the IRS and replace it with a fair tax, or national sales tax, I believe.

States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).

Also. Use some common sense. Do you really think congress would allow certain programs to be cut, such as the FDA? No. Many big programs would stay, probably untouched, with some just being made more efficient. Many small programs would probably be cut, or reduced in size.

So, basically its just common sense. Congress won't allow for the entire gov't to be cut. Paul would make gov't waste less money and less intrusive (how has he been intruding on people anyway?).

OK, let me know when you've read the original post of the thread you're posting in.



No, he's just disconcertingly similar.



Right, well that "quirk" is not one I wish to have for the guy in charge of the world's largest supply of nuclear weaponry.



Yeah, it would sure scare me if I was both paranoid and ignorant.



Do you think spreading unsupported, ignorant fearmongering does anything but prove me right?



So, for example, you would agree that ensuring the sovereignty of Nazi Germany was never a bad thing? It was just mounds of whole-grained goodness, that?

You sound like the paranoid one.

The article said he told his friends to prepare for riots and a crime wave, with some unfriendly terms thrown in. Oh no! :eek:

States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).

He's also "states' rights" on the right to privacy (which covers far more than abortion), religion, and equal protection. See the "We the People Act", where he tries to remove the ability of the individual to seek redress against a state government infringing upon these rights.

Marriage is also not the only area in which he supports unequal treatment of the LGBT community.

Your references to Hitler and the Nazi party added nothing to this debate that could not have been better served with something less absurd.

That's funny, because I was just thinking how you screaming "GODWIN" added so much to this debate. Not only did it show how icky you feel being on my "side" (this is important because your feelings are paramount, not just to anyone reading the thread but especially to me) it elevated the level of discussion: Now we can talk about things that matter - like "winning" debates with someone you don't disagree with by being able to make reference to tiresome internet cliches and how it is a "glaring mistake" to mention the H- or N- words.

Congratulations, you have an enormous internet penis. Now quit hijacking the thread with your idiocy. Kthx.

He's also "states' rights" on the right to privacy (which covers far more than abortion), religion, and equal protection. See the "We the People Act", where he tries to remove the ability of the individual to seek redress against a state government infringing upon these rights.

Marriage is also not the only area in which he supports unequal treatment of the LGBT community.

I'll look the "We the People Act" up in a bit.

That's funny, because I was just thinking how you screaming "GODWIN" added so much to this debate. Not only did it show how icky you feel being on my "side" (this is important because your feelings are paramount, not just to anyone reading the thread but especially to me) it elevated the level of discussion: Now we can talk about things that matter - like "winning" debates with someone you don't disagree with by being able to make reference to tiresome internet cliches and how it is a "glaring mistake" to mention the H- or N- words.

Congratulations, you have an enormous internet penis. Now quit hijacking the thread with your idiocy. Kthx.

Congratulations, you fail so utterly at this that you can't even offer me a rebuttal without throwing in a personal attack. Pfft.

States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).


(snipped)

That, my dear sir, is enough of a reason for me to oppose him. Limited power of the federal government is generally a good thing. Right after we ensure liberty, that is. There is absolutely no call for any government whatsoever to be restricting people's rights like that, based on such stupid reasons.

"You can marry a girl, because you're a guy; but you can't, because you're a girl, and I think that's icky"

There is no room for compromise when you're dealing with rights like that. No room for saying "Sure, some of you guys can, but if you want to be backwards assholes stuck in the middle ages, go for it". I am amazed that something like this is even being discussed, in a country which prides itself on liberty.

I also think most of his other ideas are generally rubbish, but it's this one in particular you've listed for now.

1)Find it out your own damn self. He'd cut the IRS and replace it with a fair tax, or national sales tax, I believe.

2)States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).

3)Also. Use some common sense. Do you really think congress would allow certain programs to be cut, such as the FDA? No. Many big programs would stay, probably untouched, with some just being made more efficient. Many small programs would probably be cut, or reduced in size.

3)So, basically its just common sense. Congress won't allow for the entire gov't to be cut. Paul would make gov't waste less money and less intrusive (how has he been intruding on people anyway?).

1) And this is a good thing, HOW?

2) Ah yes, I suppose equal treatment under the law and the right to bodily autonomy for women aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things :rolleyes:

3) Unfortunately what you refer to as "common sense" is neither common, nor sensible. Try again.

You sound like the paranoid one.

Are you saying monumentally stupid things just for the sake of pissing people off?

The article said he told his friends to prepare for riots and a crime wave,

The article was titled,

The Coming Race War

Your attempt at euphemizing this to "riots and a crime wave" fails miserably.

with some unfriendly terms thrown in. Oh no! :eek:

Bigotry and racism are now euphemized as "unfriendliness."

I guess you just sorta expect people to agree with you without doing anything inconvenient like THINKING. Your mistake, not mine.

Of course I could, but what's the fun in that? Everyone knows I like to throw in personal attacks. Especially in response to what are little more than personal attacks themselves.

I see. You're proud of flaming rather than offering something useful. How utterly repugnant.

Congratulations, you fail so utterly at this that you can't even offer me a rebuttal without throwing in a personal attack. Pfft.

Of course I could, but what's the fun in that? Everyone knows I like to throw in personal attacks. Especially in response to what are little more than personal attacks themselves.

States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).

So you're saying "I've got mine, Jack, too bad about anybody else"?

You sound like the paranoid one. Look who's talking Mr. "Have you heard of the North American Union?"...

I see. You're proud of flaming rather than offering something useful. How utterly repugnant.

The two are not mutually exclusive, even if I were to assume that you are correct in your assessment of my behavior as "flaming."

As for "something useful," exactly what use is you expressing how repugnant you think I am? Of what relevance have any of your comments with regards to "Godwin" etc been? None, and none. I'm not going to continue threadjacking with you.

The two are not mutually exclusive, even if I were to assume that you are correct in your assessment of my behavior as "flaming."

As for "something useful," exactly what use is you expressing how repugnant you think I am? Of what relevance have any of your comments with regards to "Godwin" etc been? None, and none. I'm not going to continue threadjacking with you.

One might imagine you seeing the error of your ways, but I suppose one some things are just too far beyond the realm of possibilities.

States rights on gay marriage and abortion, yes. But those are two issues that are not that important anyway, and there are always states that will allow both, so its not a problem (well, maybe if you are gay or want an abortion, but I'm straight and don't want an abortion, so I don't give a damn about those issues).

Like I said.

Ron Paul supports Liberty!!...when he feels like it. Please explain how this makes him remotely different from every other GOP drone we've been putting up with for the last few decades. "States Rights" means "Please stop the Federal government from forcing us to abide by the Constitution."

It's good that you are honest about the fact that you don't care about the civil and human rights of your fellow citizens, but you should be aware that this doesn't really help your case if you're arguing that Ron Paul is a champion of liberty.

I'll look the "We the People Act" up in a bit.
Wait...you are prepared to voice your support for Ron Paul, to the point where you will claim he's going to lead America to "glory," yet you haven't even bothered to look up tiny little details like this?

I think GT has the right idea when he just makes fun of you. Obviously you aren't remotely interested in silly things like "information" or "the facts," so why should any of us be wasting our time talking about them with you? You just want to make bold and totally unsubstantiated claims regarding a candidate whom you know nothing about. You deserve to be responded to in kind.

Wait...you are prepared to voice your support for Ron Paul, to the point where you will claim he's going to lead America to "glory," yet you haven't even bothered to look up tiny little details like this?

I think GT has the right idea when he just makes fun of you. Obviously you aren't remotely interested in silly things like "information" or "the facts," so why should any of us be wasting our time talking about them with you? You just want to make bold and totally unsubstantiated claims regarding a candidate whom you know nothing about. You deserve to be responded to in kind.

It'd be one thing if it was a bill he brought up once 10 years ago and then dropped. But the man proposes it, in some incarnation, pretty much every year. How can a Paul supporter pretend to be informed about his policies if they haven't bothered to check his record?

It'd be one thing if it was a bill he brought up once 10 years ago and then dropped. But the man proposes it, in some incarnation, pretty much every year. How can a Paul supporter pretend to be informed about his policies if they haven't bothered to check his record?

Well then they wouldn't be a Ron Paul supporter, now would they?

Also. Use some common sense. Do you really think congress would allow certain programs to be cut, such as the FDA? No. Many big programs would stay, probably untouched, with some just being made more efficient. Many small programs would probably be cut, or reduced in size.


Wait wait wait, lemme see if I understand this. It's ok ot support Ron Paul because he won't actually be able to do anything?

Are you really saying you support a candidate on the grounds that he'd be completely ineffectual? And you're telling us to use common sense?

Your argument is as persuasive as one I might use to convince people to vote for a rock for president.

Or lead it to glory...

I've always wondered .... what flavor is the Kool-Aid?

Wait wait wait, lemme see if I understand this. It's ok ot support Ron Paul because he won't actually be able to do anything?

Are you really saying you support a candidate on the grounds that he'd be completely ineffectual? And you're telling us to use common sense?

Your argument is as persuasive as one I might use to convince people to vote for a rock for president.

Kind of.

I think Ron Paul would do good doing most of what he wants to do, which is drastically cut the size of the federal government. He, nor any other president, are able to accomplish everything they set out to do. Even if Ron Paul only was able to achieve 25% of what he wants to do, it would be a giant step in the right direction (reducing the size of the government).

Does that make it a little clearer?

@Bottle: I'd never heard of the 'We the People Act' before. I'm looking it up tonight though.

Click Stand;13359078']Drastically cut, I don't know if drastically doing anything would be good, let alone reshaping the entire government. I also don't want Ron Paul at the front of said reshaping if it was going to happen.

Fair enough then.

Kind of.

I think Ron Paul would do good doing most of what he wants to do, which is drastically cut the size of the federal government. He, nor any other president, are able to accomplish everything they set out to do. Even if Ron Paul only was able to achieve 25% of what he wants to do, it would be a giant step in the right direction (reducing the size of the government).

Does that make it a little clearer?

@Bottle: I'd never heard of the 'We the People Act' before. I'm looking it up tonight though.

Drastically cut, I don't know if drastically doing anything would be good, let alone reshaping the entire government. I also don't want Ron Paul at the front of said reshaping if it was going to happen.

I've always wondered .... what flavor is the Kool-Aid?

i've heard conflicting accounts. both purplesaurus rex and yabba dabba doo berry have been mentioned by authoritative sources.

Click Stand;13359078']Drastically cut, I don't know if drastically doing anything would be good, let alone reshaping the entire government. I also don't want Ron Paul at the front of said reshaping if it was going to happen.

I just want ron paul to be president because he is the only person runnig for president who wants to pull out of iraq and legalize marijuana.

I just want ron paul to be president because he is the only person runnig for president who wants to pull out of iraq and legalize marijuana.

Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich.

And Mike Gravel.

I just want ron paul to be president because he is the only person runnig for president who wants to pull out of iraq and legalize marijuana.

Smoking pot is practically legal anyway, it's just technically illegal but de facto legal.

And Mike Gravel.

and any of the also also rans of the green party

Smoking pot is practically legal anyway, it's just technically illegal but de facto legal.

Um....no, not even close.

Smoking pot is practically legal anyway, it's just technically illegal but de facto legal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby

And Mike Gravel.

The guy has my vote. He's a tough, smart old dude and he seems honest and competent.

Um....no, not even close.

I've smoked pot, and it's illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/alaska-marijuana-law-struck.html

How is someone supporting a libertarian worldview not radical or extremist?
The problem with libertarians is that they suffer under the by turns disturbing and amusing delusion that their views are axiomatically true, that therefore (by virtue of the tautological black-white nature of those views) any other position is inherently wrong and reprehensibly immoral (oh the horror, taxes!), and that for this reason they aren’t really fringe extremists (when most of us know that this is precisely why they are radicals).

The problem with libertarians is that they suffer under the by turns disturbing and amusing delusion that their views are axiomatically true, that therefore (by virtue of the tautological black-white nature of those views) any other position is inherently wrong and reprehensibly immoral (oh the horror, taxes!), and that for this reason they aren’t really fringe extremists (when most of us know that this is precisely why they are radicals).Well, not really. They tought an extremist offshoot of liberalism, taking "lower taxes" to "no taxes" and "smaller government" to "as little government as possible, preferably none"...

So, a smaller, less intrusive government, with a sane foreign policy would emerge. That sounds good to me.

Yes instead of 1 flawed nation. We'll have 50 mini-nations, with the ablity to pass whatever laws they want.

Meaning most of the southeast would become a Racist Theocracy.

The guy has my vote. He's a tough, smart old dude and he seems honest and competent.

If you listen to him he is hilarious. And not in a crazy way but instead in a haha way.

Wait wait wait, lemme see if I understand this. It's ok ot support Ron Paul because he won't actually be able to do anything?

Are you really saying you support a candidate on the grounds that he'd be completely ineffectual? And you're telling us to use common sense?

Your argument is as persuasive as one I might use to convince people to vote for a rock for president.
Well......
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/GreyRock.png
I've smoked pot, and it's illegal.

What is this meant to prove?

Well......
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/GreyRock.png

come on! it's lying right there, in that very picture.

Well......
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/GreyRock.png


What dishonest propaganda. I can see that the grey rock is lying on the ground in that very picture! ;)

come on! it's lying right there, in that very picture.

What dishonest propaganda. I can see that the grey rock is lying on the ground in that very picture! ;)

I think you'll find that it's not lying on the ground at all. It is in fact partially buried. Grey Rock hasn't forgotten its roots, you see, and keeps in close contact with the molten minerals it formed from.

Yes instead of 1 flawed nation. We'll have 50 mini-nations, with the ablity to pass whatever laws they want.

Meaning most of the southeast would become a Racist Theocracy.
As has been amply demonstrated in this thread, the "libertarian" response is to simply be happy because YOU have YOUR rights. Sure, maybe all female and non-white and non-straight citizens get the living snot oppressed out of them, but YOU are a white male heterosexual living in one of the few states that isn't choosing to violate your basic civil rights. Why should you care if other people get hurt?

As has been amply demonstrated in this thread, the "libertarian" response is to simply be happy because YOU have YOUR rights. Sure, maybe all female and non-white and non-straight citizens get the living snot oppressed out of them, but YOU are a white male heterosexual living in one of the few states that isn't choosing to violate your basic civil rights. Why should you care if other people get hurt?That's a good question... I wouldn't even be affected by the repression, since I'm an overseas citizen. Why should I care? :confused:

That's a good question... I wouldn't even be affected by the repression, since I'm an overseas citizen. Why should I care? :confused:

well, beyond basic human sympathy and solidarity, there is always the fact that the forces of repression having any foothold anywhere represent a threat to you.

The problem with libertarians is that they suffer under the by turns disturbing and amusing delusion that their views are axiomatically true

Wait, so what political group doesnt feel this way about their views?

, that therefore (by virtue of the tautological black-white nature of those views) any other position is inherently wrong and reprehensibly immoral

...and which political group, exactly, doesn't think this way about opposing views?

and that for this reason they aren’t really fringe extremists (when most of us know that this is precisely why they are radicals).

Since your two premises ("the problem") are easily applicable to any group, the conclusion is as well. Therefore if we accept your premises, every political group consists of fringe extremist radicals.

And perhaps that is true.

I'm not sure why this turned into a libertarian-bashing thread though.

I'm not sure why this turned into a libertarian-bashing thread though.

My guess would be the title and the first page :eek: