Game, set and match. Not that Paul-bots will concede, they'll still fight for whatever pipe dreams they could make out of the 3% Republican support they were getting already.
BTW, I don't believe, for one minute, that this news will make Paul will drop out of the race. The guy has made a ton of cash, over $18 million in the 4th quarter of 2007 alone. I bet the back-and-side dealing "consultant contracts" will make him and his cronies rich.
It's a suckers game and Paulbots are the marks.
Yeah, but Paul said he's not a racist! Evidence be damned!
And Nixon wasn't a crook!
And Clinton didn't have sex with that woman!
I've been reading Rockwell's site on and off for some years.
He's going to be getting a pissed-off letter from me.
I read Rockwell's site at first during his early Anti-Gulf War phase. But he got pruned out as a crank as time went by. Like all the Libertarians.
Checking out his site today, I see it's had a massive make-over. Not nearly so trashy-looking as it was in the past.
Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. Give me a break.
Let me also say that most of the people writing about Ron Paul and his movement are spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution.
That, makes you racist, oh, I know you won't admit it, but think about it. You are putting us all into one group and naming it according to that one group.
Another point, they clamied MLK Jr. was a racist and more.
I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul yet, but I am looking into everything with an open mind.
Hello again my friends. The swiftboat veterans for falsification!
LastChance: There are several Libertarian Party candidates who share Ron Paul's anti-war and small government views, minus the racism and paranoia. Personally I'm leaning towards Christine Smith.
The typical response to a comment like this is, "Bah, he/she has no chance of getting elected!" To which I reply, "And Ron Paul did?"
>>That, makes you racist
"You're the real racist for pointing out the continued existence of race issues". The standard libertarian racist apology.
"spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution."
Give me a break. You can't name even one thing the Revolution did on their own that even comes close to the work they did with Prince!
wow, associate libritarian views with neo-nazi views.
way to go.
belief in freedom is racist!
Ron Paul libertarians don't believe in freedom. They believe in increased state power. Sorry Rob321.
"Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. "
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an extensive, well-documented history of supporting and catering to the white nationalist movement. This alone makes the other candidates quite a bit better than Ron Paul.
"belief in freedom is racist!"
He didn't say belief in freedom was racist. He said Ron Paul was a racist. Then he backed it up with extensive evidence.
Paul's not the only far-right Bircherite to get mass press. So did Tim Lahaye of the Left Behind series. It's unfortunate that these types are even taken seriously.
Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. Give me a break.
Pretty much everyone, actually. Well, except for (maybe) Guilianni and Huckabee. Guliani is showing signs of serious instability as his canidacy is unraveling and Huckabee is a Theocrat just waiting to happen.
Let me also say that most of the people writing about Ron Paul and his movement are spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution.
Revolution? What revolution? Oh yeah, THAT revolution, the one the racists want. Reminds me of my uncle and his crank pattering about "The Hippie Revolution" (not having enough minorities to hate where he lived). Used to tell me to cut my hair, would hate to accidentally shoot me when the Hippie Revolution came.
Funny, but 40-years later I'm still wondering when that Hippie Revolution is coming. Maybe it's schedule after the Hispanic Revolution or the Black Revolution the racists used to spout on about in the 1980s.
That, makes you racist, oh, I know you won't admit it, but think about it. You are putting us all into one group and naming it according to that one group.
No. We're calling Paul a racist based on what he's actually said, done and/or endorsed under his name. We also point out that many racists, from many different racist organizations, love Ron Paul and recognize him as a fellow traveller due to, once again, Ron Paul's stated beliefs and actions.
We do not assert that all Ron Paul followers are racist. Many are just deluded to, or ignorant of, Ron Paul's views. When they find out, they frequently, but not always, drop him like a hot rock.
Another point, they clamied MLK Jr. was a racist and more.
Huh? Who are "they?" And WTF are you babbling on about?
I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul yet, but I am looking into everything with an open mind.
LastChance | 01.16.08 - 12:17 pm | #
Right.. The "I'm defending him but I'm really just an objective outsider trying to correct all you guys." I see this with evolution and global warming denialists all the time. Faux independence while hammering at any criticism of the position/person taken.
wow, associate libritarian views with neo-nazi views.
way to go.
Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that, like many, does have some impact on a societal basis. It, however, is not being associated with fascism.
That some fascists like and support Ron Paul, because of his extensive bigoted views and contacts with racists whom they see as fellow travellers in meeting SOME OF THIER POLITICAL GOALS, doesn't extend to the RED HERRING assertion you make that somehow Libertarianism is being associated with Fascism. It's not. So shut up and stop pretending that it is. We're not so dumb to fall for such an obvious and childish ploy.
belief in freedom is racist!
Rob231 | 01.16.08 - 12:41 pm | #
Once again, a childish red herring. Nobody says that believing in freedom is racist. In fact, I think many of us would say that freedom means racism, no matter how odious, cannot be stomped out by fiat and we have to tolerate your odious existence, even if we think you are, as a group of people, putrid sacks of crap.
Remember, for many of us, freedom comes with limits on how WE MAY ACT TO OTHERS because we MUST RESPECT THEIR FREEDOM. Even if it's their freedom to be putrid assholes.
"Well, except for (maybe) Guilianni and Huckabee."
I gotta say...neither Rudy! nor the Huckster are even half as scary as Ron Paul. Neither is calling for the restructuring of 95% of the federal government, neither has a history of authentic white nationalism, and both would very probably moderate their platform once they locked in the GOP and hit the general election.
Rudy and Huck say crazy things because they want to win votes.
Ron Paul says crazy things because he's actually crazy.
All things being equal, I'll take "patronizing, manipulative but not-crazy" over "crazy" most of the time.
"You're the real racist for pointing out the continued existence of race issues". The standard libertarian racist apology.
Indeed, Ron Paul himself has used this argument:
By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
No way Ron Paul is racist! In addition to saying he's not, he also delivered two billion black babies. Or so the Paulians claim.
Let's give scrutiny to Ron Paul and ignore the problems with the other candidates??? Even if Ron Paul were a racist, which I don't believe he is, his proposals and policies go against these ideas. Now Hillary, Barack and Edwards believe in legalized theft and are willing to enforce it. Is that better? McCain, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee believe its ok killing innocent civilians as part of the war on terror. They also believe its ok to have our soldiers die in Iraq where we have no business being. These are real problems.
We can throw the baby out with the bath water and say Ron Paul is unacceptable and that's fine. Just don't tell me the other candidates are any better. In fact they are far worse. Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is still the best choice of both parties.
Smear tactics FTW, right guys?
Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
They're getting it. From the mainstream media, no less. The MSM mostly ignores Paul because he's a boutique candidate who only gets single digits, so it's up to the blogs.
Anyone who refers to taxation as "legalized theft" has clearly already drunk enough Kool-Aid that it's pointless to even attempt reason.
Let's give scrutiny to Ron Paul and ignore the problems with the other candidates???
I know! Let's scrutinize the other candidates and ignore the problems with Saint Ron!
Chug, chug, this Kool-Aid sure is yummy!
Smear tactics FTW, right guys?
Ignoring the Klanner in the living room FTW!
Rudy and Huck say crazy things because they want to win votes.
oh, I don't believe that for a second. Those two are nightmares.
This is such bullshit....
It's Obama and Hillary that are the racists.
No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
We are just working harder.
David Neiwart is a racist. I have things on tape that he said that will prove it.
Last chance
"Like the other people who are running for President are any better?"
Priorities, my lad...To white guilt regressives , everyone is better. Then again they overlook racism's fellow traveler/ promoter Martin Luther King. His refusal to criticise Israel and Zionism, indeed his friendship with Jewish racists of this ilk (a collaboration rightly condemned by black nationalists of the era) are of little moment to Neiwertites.
No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
He needed an actual candidacy to begin with.
Ron Psul is not a racist. Please stop lying to your fellow Americans, and stop smearing a man who had stood up for America and it's founding principles more than you ever will. This blog entry reeks of partisan hackery, ignorance, and race-baiting and it hurts America. Watch this and learn -- http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/24...tin-luther-
king
>>It's Obama and Hillary that are the racists.
The world weeps for the plight of white Christian males everywhere.
>>No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
That might be because it's hard to conceive how his numbers could be any lower than they already are...
I am curious. John McCain works with his Democrat buddies to pass lots of new laws limiting our freedoms...and you are wasting space condemning Lew Rockwell because he said typical Republican thing about the race war of the 1980s and early 90s back when it was happening?
I remember all Republicans were talking the way the newsletters did back when Bush Senior was President. The race war ended in the 1990s and now things are cool between the races...so you don't need to waste people's time with a witch hunt of who said what back then.
Intellectuals don't take "politically correct past" into much account when judging someone.
This talk about RP actually belonging to WN groups is unsubstantiated.
Let me test the credibility of the people who are condemning Ron Paul here. First about me, I am a pro-war Republican male who realizes that Ron Paul is correct about our civil liberties being taken away at home by a culture that not only fears that terrorists will nuke a city but that sex offenders will rape our wives and daugters. So where do any Republicans here stand on the following issues:
1) What do you think of radical feminism? What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any? Can you even criticize feminist organizations...or do you prefer to call them women's rights organizations?
2) Giuliani wants to make it illegal for Americans to have sex with prostitutes in other COUNTRIES. Do you agree with the principle that Americans fall under US jurisdiction when traveling overseas? You can be a vegetarian and still want to defend your right to eat meat. It is fascism to respond to this by saying "I would never use a prostitute so who cares".
3) Bush signed the IMBRA law that forces American men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to foreign women online. The law falsely calls international dating sites "marriage brokers" even when they openly state that they are really just dating sites. The law goes on to say that American men who want to get married to foreign women are more likely to want to beat their wives up. Feminist claptrap signed and sealed by Bush, McCain & company.
Finally, anyone who thinks the Republicans will get elected for President or for Senate, without working with the RP revolution's 6-10% is nuts.
So please drop the disrespect for others and engage in a real conversation about the 2008 elections.
Finally, anyone who thinks the Republicans will get elected for President or for Senate, without working with the RP revolution's 6-10% is nuts.
Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan are having a gut laugh at your naivete.
"Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is still the best choice of both parties."
--Timur Rozenfeld
You may be new to this blog, so you may not know that the general focus of it is on right-wing extremism and domestic terrorism within the United States. While most of the other candidates certainly suck and have big problems, Ron Paul sets off all the alarms of people who monitor the far-right in this country. That and he has a vocal and somewhat significant following nationwide at this time.
If you are looking for thorough criticism of all the candidates, this is not the place. That is not the purpose of this blog. It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion. That is why he is covered so extensively here.
>>The race war ended in the 1990s and now things are cool between the races..
The laughs just never stop.
That's a new one, most Republicans claim it ended in the 60s.
>>What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any?
Why am I not surprised that Ron Paul's constituency is not only composed of White Supremacists, but misogynists as well?
It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion.
As does Ken Hoop 
"It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion."
It fails abysmally, as any oppressed Palestinian, state terrorized Iraqi and threatened Iranian will tell you.
(This was complete comment.)
"It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy."
You mean he's still losing?
"We're working harder"
Awesome! Keep dividing up the Right and splintering the Republican Party. You have my gratitude.
Remember: Ron Paul isn't a racist. He just hates Jews, Mexicans and black people.
I am still looking into this, but Randy Gray appears to be a volunteer in one county, just one of what appears to be several dozen counties in Michigan. How how earth would anyone be expected to know the guy is involved in Racist groups? (I am taking your word, here) The point is, yeah OK, he got his picture taken with the man. Does that mean anything?
You got to be careful with this brush you are painting with. You are making some very broad strokes.
Bolo though can perhaps direct me to his
efforts to redirect Neiwert to the domestic extremism of the ruling elite which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for Israel and oiligarchy?
wow, you people really REALLY need to grow up and see if you can get some learnin
SlurmPwnzYou | 01.16.08 - 2:47 pm
Wanna ask the Iraqi/ Arab/ Iranian street who is scarier, between Paul, Giuliani and Huckabee?
White guilt regressive hypochondriac.
SlurmJunkie | 01.16.08 - 1:31 pm
Presumably.
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was
a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
"Wanna ask the Iraqi/ Arab/ Iranian street who is scarier, between Paul, Giuliani and Huckabee?"
Right. White supremacists who hate blacks, Jews and Hispanics all of a sudden are really concerned for the well-being of Arabs and Persians.
I've seen glasses of water that were more opaque.
I was going to continue on calling Ron Paul on his obvious far right ties with white supremacists, but someone from the NAACP said he's not a racist and everyone knows only the NAACP knows who's racist and who isn't...
I would trust a leader in the NAACP that has known Paul for 20 years, than those that have an interest in selling racist scare tactics to make money.
Yay, another Paul thread. Where'd I put my popcorn...
Linder:
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King, as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,"
said Linder.
what you fail to note is that perhaps he is liked for other reasons
Hey Memosphere, are you aware that blacks aren't the only race? The white supremacists who worship Ron Paul consider Jews a race as well.
http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Oh my here we go. Coordinated troll attack. Ron Paul is NOT a racist. You disinformation artists will just repeat the lie over and over and over again, but that does not make it true, as we find out later on; kind of like "Saddam has nasty WMD's".
All regular Americans reading this: The establishment will come after Ron Paul's campaign with everything they've got, just like Pat Buchanen predicted, and now we get to see it unfold. It's funny how the MSM will go the most extreme lengths to make sure they never even show Ron Paul's name when reporting on election and poll results, but when the attack comes, it's everywhere. You guys are just the start of it. So well timed. What a strange coincidence!!
Ron Paul vs. Flat Earthers (Again)
--------------------------------------------------
------
"Once the superficial layers of ad hominem and guilt-by-association have been melted, all becomes clear: Ron Paul and his supporters are being fraudulently smeared simply because their constitutional message of liberty, prosperity, and peace are impossible to defeat."
Jewish Community Leader,Michael Moshe Starkman, Runs for Congress as "Ron Paul Republican"
I guess all these people that support Paul are racists too.
Not ALL of them.
Isn't Kurchich a gay pedophile?
http://txfx.net/2008/01/08/james...-gay-pedophile/
Funny thing about the internet. It's not illegal to lie to the public. Good thing the intelligent out there don't bother reading "blogs". We read the news. And the polls are tipping toward Paul. WOOt!
Ron Paul is responsible for bringing 1000s of new lives into the world, including blacks and Hispanics, often for free. Bush and his death obsessed family are responsible for taking 1000s of lives, doesn't that just say it all? When I look into Bush's eyes I see coldness and an emptiness, when I look into Paul's eyes I see honesty and compassion and kindness.
Paul is running against Bush?
I find it ironic that people who sell racism are attacking Paul, while the NAACP is defending him.
Funny thing about the internet. It's not illegal to lie to the public.
Damn that Kirchick, lying to the public by publishing scanned copies of Ron Paul's own newsletters!
I find it ironic that people who sell racism are attacking Paul, while the NAACP is defending him.
The NAACP? Really? I thought it was just that one guy.
A little behind the times?
I guess the "Rusty" is accurate.
I"m a Ron Paul supporter. So by your definition I must be a racist, an antisemite, a homophobe and a birchite.
You're a Ron Paul smear merchant shill. Which warmonger do you support? How do you want the United States to be driven bankrupt? Careful, don't tell me who you are for, because your criticism will ring hollow if you do.
SlurmPwnzYou | 01.16.08 - 3:05 pm
Bob d, when a white guilt regressive mentions hate it's like when Cotton Mather mentioned sex.When Neiwert has a -slight- hate tremor , a half dozen Palestinians and a dozen Iraqis utter blood curdling screams.
Ron "accidentally" took 6k from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC and voted for him as majority leader. Ron "accidentally" let racist newsletters out for decades under his name. Ron "accidentally" didn't return the 500 from Don Black of stormfront. Ron "accidentally" released the racist immigration ad in Iowa and NH. Ron "accidentally" voted against impeaching Cheney. Some revolution you got there
It's an imperfect world, jr. Kucinich threw support to Obama who voted to finance war.
Posted on that?
Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden.
I love Ron Paul posts. They're so entertaining.
Dear Ron Paul supporters: please, by all means, continue your hard work on behalf of Dr. Paul. With any luck Dr. Paul will come in second in a few of the southern primaries. My fondest hope is a six-way tie for the Republican nomination, and a brokered convention, and possibly a third party candidacy for Dr. Paul or Tom Tancredo. With any luck, the Republican party will suffer its greatest loss at the polls since 1856, and cease to be a fucntioning party altogether. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Paul/Buchanan '08!
The problem boils down to this: Most Libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke pot or liberals who want to hate brown folk. I have never met any other type.
Personally, I trust the individual leaders of the fifty states more than a single tyrant in the white house and I am pro choice.
Suppose the federal government wanted to do something stupid like ban gay marriage? Then whose authority would you prefer, the individual states or the federal government?
Bigotry in big government is more dangerous that bigotry in small government. Vote for candidates that want to protect and uphold the constitution, which protects individual rights, and racism in government will be much less dangerous.
Clinton Adviser:
Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion.
So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that—the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS.
Re: Jack Sanderson and his extreme level of upset over prosecution of sex offenders, the threat that he might not be able to talk intimately with foreign women online, and the idea that men might be held accountable for illegal acts (e.g. sexually abusing children) abroad....
Dude, methinks thou dost protest just way, way, wayyyy too much. You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and are quite angry about it. Unfortunately, you're not going to find much sympathy for your (ahem) unusual interests here. Move along, please. I'm sure Chris Hansen is out there somewhere, waiting for your call.
Travis, black America was left for a century to the tender mercies of the leaders of the fifty states. Ask any one of them to tell you how well that strategy shielded them from bigotry and racism. It took "a single tyrant in the White House" and a few hundred more in Congress to step in and clip the wings off Jim Crow.
And Dave: Any chance we'll be seeing an apology from Glenn Greenwald any time soon?
I'm getting weary of the anti-Paul hirelings trying to find ways to insult him and his supporters. "Racist" -- hey, even the Clintons have been charged with that one, "sexist" -- Obama, and as for "anti-Semite" - well, everyone who isn't Jewish and even some of them (Norman Finkelstein) have been called that. Isn't this "hate talk"? Perhaps time for someone who is called a "racist" by a "progressive liberal" to bring legal suit of libel against those making the charge. Any Ron Paul lawyers out there?
The problem boils down to this:
mikeirwin | 01.16.08 - 4:06 pm | #
All of the candidates, except Paul, are going to continue the murderous foreign policies.
Basic intelligence test for Paultards:
January 3: 10%
January 8: 8%
January 15: 6%
Continue the sequence.
lol, do you actually believe this crap? Seriously, you are calling people who stand up for individual rights instead of group rights racist? Whats next, you gonna roll out Rudy's line of Freedom = Authority?
1) What do you think of radical feminism? What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any? Can you even criticize feminist organizations...or do you prefer to call them women's rights organizations?
2) Giuliani wants to make it illegal for Americans to have sex with prostitutes in other COUNTRIES. Do you agree with the principle that Americans fall under US jurisdiction when traveling overseas? You can be a vegetarian and still want to defend your right to eat meat. It is fascism to respond to this by saying "I would never use a prostitute so who cares".
3) Bush signed the IMBRA law that forces American men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to foreign women online. The law falsely calls international dating sites "marriage brokers" even when they openly state that they are really just dating sites. The law goes on to say that American men who want to get married to foreign women are more likely to want to beat their wives up. Feminist claptrap signed and sealed by Bush, McCain & company.
Jack Sanderson, I'm positively shocked that you can't get laid within the whole of the contiguous 48 states. Shurely not!?!?
[Re: Jack Sanderson and his extreme level of upset over prosecution of sex offenders, the threat that he might not be able to talk intimately with foreign women online, and the idea that men might be held accountable for illegal acts (e.g. sexually abusing children) abroad....]
Hitler came to power by twisting things around, putting words in the mouths of their opponents and then saying his opponents needed to be stopped "to protect women and children". He said this in Mein Kampf.
1) You are saying that Julie Annie is correct to say that the US has jurisdication over Americans in other countries? This is not about pedophiles, it is about a whole raft of laws.
Yes or No? You can leave the exception of pedophiles which is not what we are talking about here. There are a whole bunch of 911-related laws that now govern Americans overseas (that nobody obeys because they are unconstitutional and Bush is a fool).
2) Are you saying that visiting an adult prostitute is a sex offense? That is a new one. Even in Nevada or where the US has no jurisdiction?
3) You are OK with a US federal law that nobody obeys that dares to say men have to be background checked in order to say HELLO (much less talk intimately) with foreign woman online? The law applies to American women who want to say hello to French or Italian men as well (the American woman has to be background checked but not the foreign man).
There shouldn't have been any argument over what I said. These are rhetorical questions in a society that supposedly honors free speech, the right to assemble and the concept of innocence until proven guilty.
This is the type of thing, among tons of other bizarre new laws, that will boost libertarianism into something that destroys the Republican Party or transforms it.
Sadly, Ron Paul has not yet started to debate any specific law and I agree that his immigration TV ad was counterproductive. So is talk of a highway being built (I would not mind a superhighway).
Unfortunately the Republicans will lose the 2008 elections because there is no way the 4 factions will come together this year.
The 4 factions are:
1) Evangelicals: Would agree with Mrs. Robinson that any resistance to intrusive laws on Americans traveling overseas, must mean that the American is up to no good, rather than simply asserting that natural law and the US Constitution prevents the Bush Administration from messing with adults in other countries saying hello or doing whatever.
2) War Hawks: They are not just pro-war because I am OK with the Iraq War. The War Hawks are those who are stupid enough to think the battle against "Islamofascists" needs to be priority number 1 and it needs to be fought forever.
3) Neocons: Similar to the war hawks except these people know their priority is manipulating the war hawks and the evangelicals so they forget what being conservative ever was.
4) Libertarians: Like Reagan and Goldwater, these people are the only ones responsible enough to control the RNC and Republican Party apparatus and the Presidency.
The latter know the neocons to be the most formidable enemy because the evangelicals and war hawks are simply clueless.
You are OK with a US federal law that nobody obeys that dares to say men have to be background checked in order to say HELLO (much less talk intimately) with foreign woman online? The law applies to American women who want to say hello to French or Italian men as well (the American woman has to be background checked but not the foreign man).
I have to admit, now I'm curious to find out what's coming up on your background checks that getting you kicked out by marriage brokers...
[Jack Sanderson, I'm positively shocked that you can't get laid within the whole of the contiguous 48 states. Shurely not!?!?]
Is that wild assumption your answer to 3 important questions about the right to assemble, the right to free speech and a priori innocence?
Assuming you recognize the fact that money is a factor in dating success in many US cities, men who have the money to travel are precisely the ones who attract great looking American women when those men are living in the United States.
Then again, there are a few million Americans who live in Europe and Asia. I live ín Europe. None of us are subject to the new American banking laws...but Bush thinks we are because he signed an unconstitutional law saying that he has jurisdiction over us.
You know, the use of the "can't you get a date in the US" excuse to argue in favor of blocking US men from even speaking with the competition, is one of the best reasons why federal funding needs to be removed from so many so-called women's rights institutions in the Washington DC area.
The Constitution never said that Congress has the power to fund such things.
Clealry Paul is not the ideal candidate to end the "War on Drugs", restore the constitution, and withdraw our troops from all 148 countries in which they are currently stationed, including Iraq.
Fortunately, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Clinton and Obama all stand ready to assume leadership PLUS do all of the above!
Remember Waco, Guantanamo, etc, ad nauseum? No? Me neither.
NONE of those supposed outrages are HALF as important as ghostwritten newsletters from almost 15 years ago. Rhetoric trumps actual events every time!
[I have to admit, now I'm curious to find out what's coming up on your background checks that getting you kicked out by marriage brokers...]
There is no such thing as a marriage broker. Read www.online-dating-rights.com. I personally have nothing bad to found in a background check, but it is the principle of the matter plus the fact that it completely stops communication with adult foreigners who do not use the Internet like Americans do if at all.
It doesn't make them backward or naive and in need of protection that they do not use the Internet to socialize. The Internet is only where they ask others to contact them by other means.
We are not talking here about prostitution, but about normal dating sites like Match.com. However, Craigs List actually does have foreign prostitutes who advertise with their phone numbers and home addresses and IMBRA does not affect them because Craigs List's main business is not international socializing.
It is important also, to mention the principle that a vegetarian should want to defend to the death his right to eat meat.
Being ticked off by a bunch of laws does not mean that a person is affected.
The questions remain unanswered in favor of ad hominem attacks.
the use of the "can't you get a date in the US" excuse to argue in favor of blocking US men from even speaking with the competition, is one of the best reasons why federal funding needs to be removed from so many so-called women's rights institutions in the Washington DC area.
I'd save this material for the third date, though. It's more closing-type material than what you'd break out on the first date. Also, try not to mention the competition - you look insecure.
Start slow... try out some simple lines slamming the radical feminists. Anything employing the term "Feminazis" is always a good icebreaker. "I can't understand what these feminzais are up to half the time" is a good example. Reagan is always a good conversation starter - a few thousand words on your devotion to Reagan is always apposite. Try to lay off the Goldwater material - you don't want to look too old.
Of course, as always, the BEST conversation starter in any dating situation is always the Good Doctor himself, Ron Paul. There's nothing that makes a woman come alive like thoughts of a gynecologist.
You'll get there yet, Jack!
Gustav,
You might try answering the questions. You don't seem to have a clue about life for Americans in foreign countries and have a seeming redneck view that the only real women are American women so why would any man ever leave.
Further, manginas are the ones who really don't do very well dating in the US. A mangina is someone who might have a knee-jerk support for a law like IMBRA and he is say 40 years old and married to an overweight woman his own age who tells him to love "feminism"...and he really, really hates guys his age who are in shape, have money and date the 25 year olds at home and overseas who themselves condem "radical feminists" on their own.
It isn't hard in the US to find great women, using the twenty-somethings, who cannot stand feminists and who, by the way, are the ones voting for Obama and not Clinton.
Those who would feel shear hatred toward a man living his life and traveling to London and Paris regularly...are like those in 1930s Germany who tore down the best and brightest of German society in order to build themselves up and replace them.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
So Saint Ron took money from the Hammer and supported his bid for House Majority Leader? Wow, I was wondering what Paul would do once his 'campaign' goes bottom up. I wonder just how many heads will burst when we see Saint Ron endorsing Romney or McCain.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
See dzd's comment above. The sane ones are bailing and leaving behind the reality challenged.
By men "speaking with the competition", I meant the competition of the dried up old Senators like Clinton and Cantwell who write this kind of law and then tell their idiot compatriots like McCain in the Senate that they will vote for Alito or the Iraq War funding, if these compatriots betray their constituents and let these "social issue" laws pass.
You are aware, Rusty, that the filibuster on Alito was stopped by Maria Cantwell after she made a deal where IMBRA would pass in exchange.
You can look this up. As a liberal, conservative or neocon, it should not warm your heart that deals are being made in the Senate where everyone's interests are eventually harmed.
Liberals did not benefit from this deal that got Alito on the bench. I might expect that Alito himself will be one to overturn this law and that would mean Cantwell's deal was all in vain.
There is nothing weird, Rusty, about fighting for one's civil rights that one had all one's life and then was told supposedly no longer existed.
Bush's banking law that required Americans to report overseas accounts was what you can call "weird".
fighting for one's civil rights that one had all one's life and then was told supposedly no longer existed
I'm predicting that the next great Civil Rights Movement in America will be the one defending the Civil Right To Travel To Bangkok To Watch A Sixteen-Year Old Abused Child Shoot Ping-Pong Balls Out Of Her Hoo-Ha For Ten Dollars A Show.
Jack, it will no doubt shock you that I never even heard of this terrible, terrible IMBRA until today. I'm very sorry that those bastards in Congress have made it a little more difficult to traffic in foreign women and bring them here and beat them. Honestly, what were they thinking?
Damn feminazis.
To Moses:
I was a Ron Paul supporter, I did not want to believe it, but I am looking into it. If I really want to do the right thing, then I need to look into it. If he is not a racist, it should be easy to find the truth. The one thing I will not do is believe what a boy from Yale who has been sponsered by a Foundation that deals in chemicals and munitions (which, btw would benifit from keeping the war going) tell me what to think. Guilt by association right???
I have been looking into the racist newsletters, on my own. I have an open mind. You should NEVER take one persons opinion over anothers. Espically when you don't personally know them. One thing that bothers me is the timing of the newsletters. They both came out on Primaries. If the media has known about this then why did they hold the information for so long? Why didn't they do it back before the first money bomb? Or when he first declared he was running?
What is the motive here? It wasn't for our benefit. Why haven't they produced video clips of Ron Paul saying these things?
I do know one thing, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I grew up in Mississippi, one of the most racist places there is in America. I do know a little something about people who are racist. I can tell you that people who really are, say against black people, who would NEVER allow money to be raised on MLK Day. They never change their strips so to speak. If they talk that way, they always do. Atleast, that is what I have seen in that state. Racism takes the most powerful emotion known to man. It not easy to control or cover up in speech or actions.
I know now, that people are saying, oh he didn't really write them, but the fact that he allowed it to happen is far worse anyway. We all knew that he claimed that to begin with, so why weren't we saying that from the very start?
I don't know what I will find, but I do know that to be openminded is to be the opposite of a racist, and to be openminded is to look into both sides.
We would so easily fire someone just because another person said that they had stolen from our company, we would look into it and follow all the options before we made a decision. If we didn't, it would be like letting someone else run our company. Are we so determined to be closed minded that we are willing to chance making a big mistake?
I just believe that this is to important to dismiss no matter what said you are on.
But that is what others depend on us to do. Stay divided, that is.
Okay, I am ready for all the reasons everything I just said was wrong. Give it to me.
on my last quote said = side
sorry
"We read the news. And the polls are tipping toward Paul. WOOt!"
I don't know what news the Ronroids are reading, but Paul is clearly tanking. He has *2* out of 99 delegates awarded so far, and is losing ground in each successive primary--10% in IA, 8% in NH, 6% in MI, and polling at a whopping 3% in SC, and a dismal 5% in both NV and FL (likely to drop if his numbers in SC don't improve).
Given that he's such a joke of a candidate, I'm not sure I'm going to waste any more typing on him. It'll still be a pleasure to watch the Ronroids splutter and fume here, though.
And re: money, Paul's raised a total of $8 million so far--good for a Libertarian but it puts him in a distant 5th place behind the somnambulist Fred Thompson--who's managed to raise $12 million just by showing up and looking old.
Either way it's a campaign slowly imploding. Which I suppose is better than the free-falling campaign of Mr. 9/11, but that's not exactly setting the bar high.
Dammit, those were Q3 2007 numbers. FEC Q4 numbers aren't out yet.
Maybe people don't believe in the polls, they have been proven to be wrong. He his vote % has been higher than all the polls by like 4% so far. I think he is doing well for being an underdog. He has beaten 2 "top tier" Candidates 3 times now. But then, you have to remember who is telling us who the "top tier" are.
If he isn't worth talking aobut Cerebus then why do you bother?
Heh. Let's not watch all the Paulbot's play twister with fury and insane rationales. That means lots of sore necks in the AM.
Of course the rest of the 'Pubs are fascists and the Democratic Party is just a khaki-clad faction of the enemy allied to big business interests.
Wake up people Paul is worthless, The Repubs are vulgar and the Dems are validating the whole show.
How much more evidence do you need?
Maybe people don't believe in the polls, they have been proven to be wrong.
Do they believe in the vote results?
Huckabee, McCain, Clinton, and Romney are just as racist as Paul is. They just speak in code, while pushing their common white supremacist agenda.
It's good to expose overt racism, but there needs to be more analysis of covert racism, which is quite common and socially acceptable in much of our society.
Leave the country for a week or so and a whole new crop of Rondanistas seem to have appeared, to bolster the ranks of the usual suspects. Rusty nailed it when he opined on the downward spiral of their increasing wierdness.
On the other hand, I would like to see Ron's position paper on "manginas". Since Jack seems to be unencumbered with femine company, he probably has enough time on his hands (amongst other things) to elaborate on how RP will restore manly men to their rightful position.
Ooookay. In IA, Paul polled 7% and got 10%. In NH, Paul polled 7% and got 8%. In MI, Paul polled 8% and got 6%.
So far the "higher than all the polls by like 4% so far" claim isn't looking ... well, *factual* ... is it?
On the plus side, the polls *were* all wrong. Not sure that counts in the Ron Paul "win" column, though.
Recall that in SC he's polling 3%. +4% would put him at 7%, still a good bit below his IA high-water mark.
As far as beating Mr. 9/11 and Fred "Zzzz" Thompson, I wouldn't crow too loudly. Both of these campaigns are imploding from self-inflicted wounds. It's not so much that Paul beat them as they lost to Paul.
"If he isn't worth talking aobut [sic] Cerebus then why do you bother?"
Well, I suppose it's the same impulse that leads children to kick over anthills. The resulting fruitless fury of the ants is fascinating to observe.
Ok, I understand. If you want to discuss domestic extremism, then my comments about the other candidates still stand. We have candidates who believe it is their job to manage our lives, whether it is from the economic or social angles and that makes them examples of domestic extremism which are far worse than Ron Paul's so called extremism. So unless this is site is dedicated solely to attacking Ron Paul, the other candidates have far more dirt to uncover than he does.
If Ron Paul demonstrates domestic extremism it is for extreme liberty. Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it. The other candidates consider it to be a worthless piece of paper. Who is being extreme here?
By the way, those commenters who call people Paulbots and Paultards etc. are showing that ad hominen attacks seem to be the spirit of Paul Haters and that their responses are emotional, not rational. If they want to discuss different points of view, that is fine, but calling people names usually shows that they have a lot of anger and possibly hatred, so it is hypocritical for these people to talk about Ron Paul's extremism and racism, when their premise is that anyone who says anything good about Ron Paul should be villified and automatically is wrong just because they support Ron Paul, without even listening to their arguments. This is another brand of collectivist thinking similar to the thinking that leads to racism.
I just LOVE it when a man complains that he can't get a date in the entire lower 48! Just makes me want to give him a call and offer hot phone s*x.
(snark off)
Clue, man - no one likes a whiner.
Are you talking to me?
"Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it."
... as he sees it. And therein lies the problem--I don't accept his axioms about the law; therefore I reject his conclusions.
For instance, I don't believe "original intent" is a valid legal concept. American law has its basis in English Common Law, and the core principal of Common Law is that interpretation of both Law and precedent is mutable because societies change over time. What may be acceptable today may be the iconic expression of tyranny tomorrow, and if the interpretation of the Law cannot accommodate this, then the Law is useless. Therefore all Libertarian arguments founded on the idea of preserving "original intent" are, simply speaking, invalid.
So when you say something like:
"Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it. The other candidates consider it to be a worthless piece of paper. Who is being extreme here?"
The answer is: You are and he is. You regard Law as an immutable object; engraved on stone tablets and handed down from on High accompanied by choirs of Seraphim singing hosannahs. I don't. Your view is that Man serves the Law. I believe that it is better when Law serves Man. My view is more typical of sophisticated civilizations; yours is a rigidity that is characteristic of extremism.
The authors of our Constitution had no special magic, nor were they particularly smarter than we. In fact, in many ways, we are smarter than they and we are each certainly better informed about the world and its history than any of them could ever have hoped to be, if only because of the technology we have at our fingertips. This particular form of ancestor worship serves only to provide easy answers to complex modern questions of Law, and the system that arises from this concept is thus revealed as nothing more than dogma. It is not, in any way, the philosophy it presents itself as--it is the negation of thought, the replacement of thought with rote answers devised by long dead and buried men.
The real problem is that you're very likely to be unable to truly see and understand things from this angle. I can see things from yours, but I reject your way--not because I don't understand it, but because I understand it quite well. I see the flaws in your view of the world, and also see that my own angle--while still imperfect--is a marked improvement.
Yes, I've had this argument before, and I'll probably have it again, with the same outcome.
And as for the name-calling--well, I'm human, and I sometimes give in to my frustrations with people doing and saying the same stupid things over and over again. Sue me.
"Given that he's such a joke of a candidate, I'm not sure I'm going to waste any more typing on him."
Cerebus
-----------------------------
Finally! There is a God...
By the way, isn't the Constitution supposed to be amended if outdated or flawed? After all, if those who wrote it were not as smart as us, why do we even use the Constitution? Shouldn't we just throw it out with the paper trash (and recycle it, of course)? Enlighten me.
Timur, if the description fits....
And if it does, that makes two of you here -- and you're confirming stuff that Dave and I have long suspected about the secret life of wingnuts.
Where is the analysis of the racist tone of the Clinton campaign? They dig up ancient articles, but draw a blind eye to the Democrats. The dissection of this strategy is even on PBS.
MARK SHIELDS: I had six senior Democrats this week, unaligned in this campaign, independently volunteer to me that they thought it was part of the campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign to get this in to make it a black-white race going into February 5th, that in several...
Dr. Rhymes @ BlackAgendaReport
"Hillary's allusion to Dr. King's ability to inspire as compared to LBJ's ability to make the Civil Rights Act a reality smacks of racism at its most pernicious level. The old Blacks "sho can talk" but are short on ability stereotype is very evident in this analogy. "
Funny thing is Clinton & Obama came together by both blaming overzealous staff.
Sound Familiar?
.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
Rusty Shackleford | 01.16.08 - 6:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Truer words were never spoken . . . man, this batch makes the last batch of Paulbots seem rational.
What never fails to make me laugh is that they come here and start accusing Orcinus regulars of being Romney, 9ui11iani, or Huckabee supporters, and assuming we like Bush and the PATRIOT Act. The whole crew gets an F on the reading comprehension segment of their tests.
As I said, I am happy to be enlightened on Paul's secret yearnings and on those of some of his supporters. Most of the "Paultards", however, are fans because of his policy positions, which stand in rather stark contrast to the mainstream candidates on both sides.
The fact remains that the single best way to improve race relations and to improve inner city economies would be to end the very destructive "war on drugs", and the single best way to improve our foreign policy stance and to stop alot of corruption is to move to a non-interventionist foreign policy stance and to drastically scale down our foreign military presence. Paul might be a bigot, but his stances on these points are right and are exactly what we need.
With any luck, the Republican party will suffer its greatest loss at the polls since 1856, and cease to be a fucntioning party altogether. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Well said, and all the more reason to support Ron Paul.
However, what we ARE rather sure of ending up with is either Hillary or Barack, coupled with Dem control of the Congress - viz., bigger and BETTER federal policies and continued large military/defense pork, and even more dissatisfaction in the hinterlands.
We need a deeper discussion of precisely what problems we should be trying to address through government, and at what level. Maybe our conservative Supreme Court will decide to push us in the right direction by finally finding that various federal laws are not supported by the limited grant of power in the Commerce Clause.
Dave, thanks for linking to the "revealing" reportage from Julian Sanchez and David Weigel of Reason. Did you miss their conclsion?
But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world." He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers; and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
"He has successfully sold himself to many people -- including many thoughtful, smart people who believe in his decency -- as a libertarian"
In America, "libertarian" has (unfortunately) been appropriated by the extreme free market right. It is better called "propertarian" as it is, fundamentally, interested in property NOT liberty. They have no problems with property owners restricting freedom for their employees and tenants.
Once this is understood, the strange notions and alliances of this section of the right becomes more understandable. Like, for example, von Mises' praise for fascism in the 1920s.
The genuine libertarian tradition is represented in America by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Murray Bookchin. It recognises that liberty is more than changing masters.
[Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.]
Oh yes, this writer "has committed his life" to libertarianism. Reality check: He collects a paycheck provided by an unknown donor.
This nonsense fits a pattern used widely by the National Socialists in the early 1930s: that of slandering an idea by association with other politically incorrect notions. Nobody really believes that Lew Rockwell is racist and Ron Paul's call to release non-violent drug offenders is actually something racists would resist.
The idea that the Reason and Cato editors are motivated by "a desire to keep their reputation pure" is accepted by nobody...it is very well known that some of them just hold particular agendas above the general cause of libertarianism (gay rights, abortion rights, whatever). There was a great article yesterday somewhere about the "Beltway Libertarians" who had cushy lives and were married to Democrats and Republicans and didn't want to see Washington DC go into an economic tailspin, which is what the rest of the libertarians in the country would like to