[Ed Dantes]

In light of this, if true, I withdraw any support I had for Ron Paul:::

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

Some highlights:

Racist Pull Quotes:

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”

“The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”

“The criminals who terrorize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against ‘The Man.’ And ‘The Woman.’’”

“My friend waved to the tiny [African-American] child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): “I hate you, white honkey.” And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way?” [As a matter of fact, Paul has appeared on a radio program called “The Political Cesspool,” which has featured the neo-Nazi twin pop stars Prussian Blue. –ed.]

“But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.”

“Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).”

“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.”

“We must not kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.”

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots.”

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.”

“Blacks have ‘civil rights,’ preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black TV shows, black TV anchors, black scholarships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”

[LUconn]

I was wating for someone to post that or this: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca


however, a lot of that seems to have come from his newsletter. Which has different contributors to it. And much of it doesn't state who wrote what article. Very easy to deny or say one of the other guys wrote it.

[bigsmooth]

ron paul is a non-factor anyway....

[El Scorcho]

Eh. Given the age of it all, I'm not surprised. He said a lot of stuff in the 80's and early 90's I disagreed with and has even said himself that he was very wrong on some of those things.

A lot of people say things and take stances they later regret. I'd think anyone who's been a part of LU and TRBC would understand that better than most.

[ToTheLeft]

Eh. Given the age of it all, I'm not surprised. He said a lot of stuff in the 80's and early 90's I disagreed with and has even said himself that he was very wrong on some of those things.

A lot of people say things and take stances they later regret. I'd think anyone who's been a part of LU and TRBC would understand that better than most.

But Huckabee pardoning those prisoners and raising taxes at the demand of his citizens, man how intolerable is he!

[El Scorcho]

Eh. Given the age of it all, I'm not surprised. He said a lot of stuff in the 80's and early 90's I disagreed with and has even said himself that he was very wrong on some of those things.

A lot of people say things and take stances they later regret. I'd think anyone who's been a part of LU and TRBC would understand that better than most.

But Huckabee pardoning those prisoners and raising taxes at the demand of his citizens, man how intolerable is he!

The difference is that Ron Paul said some things personally a long time ago while Huckabee did some things professionally not that long ago.

But hey, if you wanna smear, smear away. Politics as usual.

[ToTheLeft]

Lol, got the response I was hoping for.

Like Smoothie said, Paul is a non-factor. Doesn't matter in the end.

[Knucklehead]

Lol, got the response I was hoping for.

Like Smoothie said, Paul is a non-factor. Doesn't matter in the end.

Agree, therefore a non-story and a waste of time like all the Paul banners and such!

[ToTheLeft]

Lol, got the response I was hoping for.

Like Smoothie said, Paul is a non-factor. Doesn't matter in the end.

Agree, therefore a non-story and a waste of time like all the Paul banners and such!

And it would almost begin to matter if he was even an afterthought to be someone's VP, but he isn't. He is a total non-factor and, racist or not, he won't be in the White House.

[El Scorcho]

Lol, got the response I was hoping for.

Like Smoothie said, Paul is a non-factor. Doesn't matter in the end.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess. He's still the top GOP fundraiser. Even if it doesn't equate to votes, there are a lot of people who are going to put a lot of money behind this cause. He also may not be a factor in the race for president. However, he has gathered more people into the Libertarian fold than any libertarian candidate before him. The Libertarian Party and those in the GOP who hold libertarian views are a growing force. They get stronger with every election and that's not going to change any time soon.

That aside, even if these racist statements are views that Ron Paul holds today, I'm behind him for his support of a constitutional government, not for his personal views. If you replaced him with another candidate that held the same views and had the same record to back it up, I'd just as well vote for him. The movement behind Paul is not about Ron Paul. It's about a political ideal. It's about a cause.

So again, smear if you want, but the cause isn't going away with this election or any time soon and it doesn't change my views on anything.

[El Scorcho]

P.S.

January 7, 2008, 7:10 AM
Huckabee Sounding A Little Like Ron Paul

WINDHAM, N.H. -- Speaking to a packed gymnasium Sunday, Mike Huckabee sounded off on how politicians in Washington, D.C. had spent beyond their public mandate. He then threw in a line about money printing that could have come out of Ron Paul’s mouth...

...Interestingly, Huckabee’s words sound like an issues statement on fellow candidate Ron Paul's campaign website. It's not plagiarism, but their points are quite similar: “Today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours. In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/06 ... 0193.shtml

[ToTheLeft]

the cause

That's the mindset that gets me about Paul Supporters.

He is the Savior and Remedy for America, and they are on this crusade of grafitting and bannering and yelling and harassing in the name of....


the cause.


It's kinda creepy.

[El Scorcho]

the cause

That's the mindset that gets me about Paul Supporters.

He is the Savior and Remedy for America, and they are on this crusade of grafitting and bannering and yelling and harassing in the name of....


the cause.


It's kinda creepy.

If you think I said he is the savior for America, you didn't read my post. One more time: It's about a political ideal, not the man himself. If you replaced him with another libertarian candidate that had the same views and had the same record as Paul, I would just as easily vote for him.

The reason the supporters are so vocal is because their political ideal is not anything like those of the other candidates. Yes we think our ideal and political causes are important ones. I personally prefer people who are passionate about their country. If that makes me creepy, so be it.

[ToTheLeft]

You are not passionate about THIS country if you want to change it from the inside out.

I lean Libertarian, I understand all this stuff, and I support some of the ideas. I just hate the fact that in the name of some 4% radical idea people are making such a fuss.

It will never work. Especially not with a Dem. controlled Congress. You could get pot legalized, but that's about it.

Too many checks and balances for one man, regardless of if it is Paul or whoever, to make a difference.

[El Scorcho]

You are not passionate about THIS country if you want to change it from the inside out.

Okay, then. Let me rephrase. We're passionate about the constitution of this country and the laws that it's supposed to operate by. How's that? better? I still don't appreciate that, though. To say that I'm not passionate about THIS country just because I don't like the way the government is currently operating is complete B.S. The United States is made of people, and that's what I care about.

Listen, I don't believe Ron Paul would come in and make sweeping changes over night to every branch of government. But the fact that he understands that it probably needs to happen gives me reason to believe he understands how the executive branch should be run and how the country should be run. If it's too many checks and balances for one man to make a difference, why do we even elect a president? Why do we spend so much time talking about all of these candidates? They can quite obviously make a difference in the direction of this country and if you don't believe that, all you have to do is look back at the last seven years. Bush has been able to accomplish quite a bit by executive order and without Congress' approval.

[El Scorcho]

I just hate the fact that in the name of some 4% radical idea people are making such a fuss.

Yeah minorities with dissenting opinions should totally just bend over and take it from the majority. Because this is a democracy and the majority rules.

[ToTheLeft]

You are not passionate about THIS country if you want to change it from the inside out.

Okay, then. Let me rephrase. We're passionate about the constitution of this country and the laws that it's supposed to operate by. How's that? better? I still don't appreciate that, though. To say that I'm not passionate about THIS country just because I don't like the way the government is currently operating is complete B.S. The United States is made of people, and that's what I care about.

Listen, I don't believe Ron Paul would come in and make sweeping changes over night to every branch of government. But the fact that he understands that it probably needs to happen gives me reason to believe he understands how the executive branch should be run and how the country should be run. If it's too many checks and balances for one man to make a difference, why do we even elect a president? Why do we spend so much time talking about all of these candidates? They can quite obviously make a difference in the direction of this country and if you don't believe that, all you have to do is look back at the last seven years. Bush has been able to accomplish quite a bit by executive order and without Congress' approval.

Well, you made it sound like you love America so much that you are passionate about Ron Paul, when Ron Paul would be instituting changes left and right.

You are passionate about what this country WAS in the beginning.

Before modern times rolled around, and things changed, and we needed to start Amending the original, outdated Document while still holding to the core values and principles.

I believe that people SHOULD be able to have freedoms and live happily how they choose to.

But I know people, and people would screw that up.

In an ideal world, Ron Paul would be King. He fits the bill for the ideal way of living. Personal freedom, economic freedom, everyone is able to enjoy what they have how they want to.

This world is far from ideal.

And it will never work.

[ToTheLeft]

And I am not trying to smear, I am being realistic.

And with the Huckabee comments I was just trying to tick you off cuz I know how you feel about him.

[El Scorcho]

You are passionate about what this country WAS in the beginning.

Before modern times rolled around, and things changed, and we needed to start Amending the original, outdated Document while still holding to the core values and principles.

No, that's not right. We're not arguing to change the Constitution back to the original form. We're arguing that the country should be run according to the Constitution as it is written today, which is still the authority for how the United States of America is supposed to be governed, despite what some seem to think.

[RagingTireFire]

You are passionate about what this country WAS in the beginning.

Before modern times rolled around, and things changed, and we needed to start Amending the original, outdated Document while still holding to the core values and principles.

I was trying to stay out of this. I really was. But this ^^ right here makes no dang sense. Just because the Constitution was amended does not mean that the original document no longer applies. In fact, the document itself is the basis for the amendments themselves. While we're here, I'm curious as to what qualifies as "modern times" considering that the last amendment only once in the last 35 years and that one had to do with Congressional pay raises.

I believe that people SHOULD be able to have freedoms and live happily how they choose to. But I know people, and people would screw that up.

You do realize that what you're advocating here is either a police state or a nanny state, don't you? This makes you either Hitler or the Swedish. Or, depending on perspective, an RD.

[Ed Dantes]

Here's the thing.

I think it's fallacious to say that we want to return to the days of our nation's founding, because... frankly, back then we had slavery.

However, the Constitution is really a framework for a limited democratic-style government, which is frankly the best type of plausible government out there (I for one favor 'benevolent dictatorship'). However, through the years, this Government of ours has become too unweildly. We've all seen things like a $400 toilet seat, FEMA trailers getting sent to the wrong state, corrupt politicians, etc.

Why? Probably lack of term limits, I don't know... Bloodlust for power is more like it. Go watch 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'. That stuff is all true except the good guys don't win.

Instead, I think Paul supporters -- the ones that aren't the crazy 9/11 truthers -- feel that Ron Paul is the only one that gets it...

Government is bad. It is a necessary evil in its best form, and an intolerable one in its worst. And ours has teetered on being the latter for far too long.

[01LUGrad]

The Constitution=Overrated

Signed,
Hillary & Barack

[ToTheLeft]

You are passionate about what this country WAS in the beginning.

Before modern times rolled around, and things changed, and we needed to start Amending the original, outdated Document while still holding to the core values and principles.

I was trying to stay out of this. I really was. But this ^^ right here makes no dang sense. Just because the Constitution was amended does not mean that the original document no longer applies. In fact, the document itself is the basis for the amendments themselves. While we're here, I'm curious as to what qualifies as "modern times" considering that the last amendment only once in the last 35 years and that one had to do with Congressional pay raises.

I believe that people SHOULD be able to have freedoms and live happily how they choose to. But I know people, and people would screw that up.

You do realize that what you're advocating here is either a police state or a nanny state, don't you? This makes you either Hitler or the Swedish. Or, depending on perspective, an RD.

You misunderstood me twice, but I won't convince you guys of anything, I am just a stupid kid.

So I will respectfully leave this discussion, and you can just keep your assumptions tucked away, without me trying to explain myself further, in futility.

[Hold My Own]

Yeah minorities with dissenting opinions should totally just bend over and take it from the majority

I call whoever bends over and takes it from the majority whores

[Ed Dantes]

Yeah minorities with dissenting opinions should totally just bend over and take it from the majority.

Well, that's exactly what's happening to the 49% of us who are called "taxpayers".