Ron Paul: right-wing wackjob
We've noted ourselves that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that talks a good line on the Iraq war. But it is really disturbing to see anti-war folks line up behind him uncritically. Nico Pitney notes the phenomenon—without comment—on Huffington Post. Why, but why, is word not getting around of his sinister ultra-right connections? While too many "radicals" are taking his noxious bait, leave it to the liberals at The New Republic to call the rascal out. Their James Kirchick last month wrote a profile appropriately entitled "Angry White Man," in which he perused back issues of Paul's monthly newsletter, published under various names—Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report—since 1978, two years after he was first elected to Congress. Kirchick presents selections of ugly racist garbage that have appeared in its pages over the years. Excerpts:
"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.
This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."
A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
On TNR, this is all hyperlinked to the originals—check it out for yourself. Next is a nice compendium of ugly anti-gay garbage:
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: "Bring Back the Closet!"
A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Then there's a fine sampling of gun nuttery and militia madness:
The November 1994 issue of the Survival Report celebrates anti-government militias.
The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report--released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing--cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an "ex-cop" who offers this strategy for protecting against "urban youth": "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)."
Here's some choice rhetoric. Does the contemporary left hate Jews (oops, I mean "Zionists") so much that they'll be willing to forgive the anti-Black racism and homophobia?
In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
The next quote Kirchick presents as an indictment of Paul, but it is (alas) more likely to win him fans in radical "left" circles these days:
The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state."
Kirchick anticipates that Paul will try to weasel out of responsibility for these statements by shilling the blame off onto underlings:
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
Not surprisingly, real-live rad-right racist yahoos have gotten on board with the Paul campaign. A blogger on Daily Kos named Phenry reported Jan. 16 that "Randy Gray, the Midland County, Michigan coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign...is also a longstanding active and vocal organizer for the Knight's Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan." Phenry wrote that the Paul campaign had not returned his calls seeking comment on Gray. The Saginaw News reported Jan. 31 that Gray had been sacked by the campaign, and quoted him asserting that he had never been questioned about his Klan affiliations when he signed up, so he didn't volunteer them. He also boasted: "I don't fit the stereotype. I don't have swastikas on." (Thanks, neither does David Duke.) The Ohio-based Brotherhood of Klans still promotes Paul on its website. Arguably, there is nothing Paul can do about this (some of our own screeds have been picked up by the neo-Nazi Stormfront website, as we have bemoaned). But we argue that there is a deeper political logic to the vile flies attracted by Ron Paul's racist stench.
What is more disconcerting is the attraction he holds for too many on the anti-war "left"—a demoralizing phenomenon we have also noted in the case of Pat Buchanan.
See our last post on the (yes) radical right.
Smearing Ron Paul
Why would you write an article trying to smear Dr. Paul??? He is our only chance of saving our future, if he got the attention the other corrupt "candidates" got, he would definately be our next president. People need to know who he is, just watch some videos of him on youtube and you get a genuine sense of who he is and what he's all about. People need to stop being sheep and realize there's someone the media doesn't cover who's the BEST candidate.
Educate yourselves and vote Ron Paul!!!
I give up...
Dude, did you read any of that?!
So sad, so sad
So discredited, so past, such a waste of time. With such weighty issues out there you're still trying to rack up emotionalist outrage based on ignorance? I'll tell you what- even if all the racist, homophobic smears came from the pen of Ron Paul this gay man will vote for individual liberty, the right to my life and labor, an intelligent foreign policy, economic stability, etc., as long as the overly centralized federal government permits me the right to vote.
(PS- Since none of the mainstream media have been able to do it, someone should let the 17 year old black kid at the recent rally here in Boston know what mortal danger he was in associating with a bunch of civil libertarians/individualists. Really. What reality are you living in? Have you talked with any black or gay Paul supporters? Or do you just pick and choose what you find on the internet to argue your emotionalist positions?)
Don't feel lonely, gay man
Voting against your own interests is a great American tradition.
Weinberg
Of course. My mistake. I should vote with my kind since perpetual war and social programs driving my country into bankruptcy. My best interests have nothing to do with owning my life, keeping what I earn, investing in my future... After all, I'm gay, as you so kindly point out in your generous response to me. Like I recently read from some idiot, "Dude, did you read any of that?"
Any asshole that claims to support minority rights but fails to support individual rights stands for neither. Why don't you write about Obama and his shady dealings, if you want a dirty SOB... And since Pauls platform is so hateful, does that mean our troops are as well? I mean, they're the ones supporting Paul and his racist platform, having given him more money than the other candidates, dem. or rep., combined.
Now, before you make another lame comment involving what I do with my dick, let me ask you again: Dude, did you read any of that?
Reading comprehension problems
Excuse me, I just did write about Obama and his shady dealings!
Anybody who claims to be for individual rights and wants to put gays back in the "closet" is a two-timing hypocrite.
Oh, and do you speak for "the troops"? All of them? Really?
Oh, and do you speak for "the troops"? All of them? Really?
He might not be able to, but my husband can. He was a Chaplin's Assistant in the military, he just got out about a year ago. Yes, he does know how they feel. Because of the position he held he spoke with many of the troops off the record. Those that are still sane and those whom have seen such terrible things happen to even the most innocent in Iraq that they lost it mentally.
They are tired of finally getting home from the war only to be told, within about a month, that they will be going back in less than a year. Oh, and before you say, "well, they get a year with their family" most of that year is spent training and getting ready to go back.
Then, there are the injured that have papers restricting them from going to war, I will not tell you the whole process, but most of them end up with new papers from different doctors that say they are ready to ship off. All it takes is a mass appointment and about 2 minutes to make those people who are not physically or mentally ready to go to war, good to go. It is because they have to have a certain number of "warm bodies" over there.
So, yes, he believes that those troops would be supporting the only man who is ready to bring them home and let them have time to actually rest, heal, and spend time with their families.
Military speak for themselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec4OL34Txys
Your smear is pathetic
Absolutely
The Soldiers have spoken. Are Americans going to turn their backs again?
So, so, sad.
My gay brother from another mother,
My Scientology friends,
My small business owner friends,
My NRA friends,
My freedom loving fellow Americans,
I don't agree with all of you but I don't want the government in my business and I sure as hell don't want it in yours.
My fellow followers of the law of the land, the Constitution, go Ron Paul!
Go, Ron!
SHOUT LOUDER
But none of the above is discredited.
Do you pick and choose what you read in order to argue for your weird new hero?
Proof Paul didn't write newsletters!
Of course it's been discredited, all you have to do is read what he himself has published, NOT the newsletter. Compare the rants versus the books. Really, please, for the love of G_d read a passage one page in any of the following!
PLEASE READ ONE PAGE and make a corolation between them, there is NONE!
# Evaluation of Renal Biopsy in Pregnancy Toxemia". Obstetrics and Gynecology 3
# Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency
# The Case for Gold: a Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission (
# Abortion and Liberty. Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. .
# Ten Myths About Paper Money.
# Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (
# Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
# Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue
# Paul, Ron (1991). The Ron Paul Money Book. Plantation Publishing.
# Paul, Ron (2000). A Republic, If You Can Keep It. House of Representatives.
# Paul, Ron (2002). The Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards – 2001. Jersey City, New Jersey: Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards. ISBN 1893958841.
# The Ron Paul – Liberty In Media Awards – vol. 3
# A Foreign Policy of Freedom
# Pillars of Prosperity
# The Revolution: A Manifesto
Are these the titles of a MADMAN? Is Dr. Paul perfect, no one is, well one but he was killed.
Are these the titles of a Racist?
Are these the titles by a homophobe?
NO, NO, NO! I remit myself to these examples.
You guys are really grasping
None of this "proves" a damn thing, but even if he didn't personally write those evil screeds—so what? They appeared under his name, in his newsletter! Do you really contend he bears no responsibility for them?
This is voice of sheer desperation.
blind eye
> They appeared under his name, in his newsletter!
If possible every Ron Paul supporter should be expected to repeat that phrase over and over until it sinks it. Obviously the man can't keep track of a newsletter, but let's make him President(?)
Or put your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la, not listening, DR Paul is for FREEDOM tm ... la la la, not listening ...'
If not Ron Paul.. who?
We don't have the money to fund these wars or to pay Social Security or Government health care, or even to fix our roads.
Who else will tell you this truth?
Would you be more comfortable voting for a lier that says soothing words and doesn't deliver?
The war will end, there will be no Social Security for the 20 and 30 somethings. There is no money. Just paper, and that is losing it's value on an exponential curve.
The government will continue taking more and more of your earnings and give it to people that help them get elected...Unless we change what we're willing to put up with and get an Honest and fiscally responsible person(s) in charge.
Unless you have an alternative this thread is of no value.
Lets hear your plan.
I'll bite ...
OK forward movement is what's needed. On that we agree.
My plan:
1) First elect local officials (note plural) before running for President. Elect Governors, State Senators, Mayors, Dogcatchers. The US Green party has done some of this but not nearly enough (to justify the Nader 2000 ego trip). Hold off on the higher offices until you have a 50 state basis for a movement. It's all fun and sexy and rock and roll to run for President with Big Ideas that Fix Everything. Politics is about fixing the roads, financing the schools and fire departments, keeping the air and water acceptably clean. If your movement can't run a city, why should anyone think you can run a country?
2) Address some of the fundamental problems in US culture and urban planning. Distribution of food and addiction to the automobile come to my mind, you may have other ideas. It's not required, though it is desired, that you solve these problems, just that you address them.
3) ...
Now I'm curious if my above musings can be construed as a smear on Dr Paul.
Mein Kampf
You and many others would equate Dr. Paul to evil.
I make the case that Hitler wrote Mien Kampf and lived Mien Kampf. All of Hitlers subsequent writings, speeches, and interviews you will see the man for what he is. It is so blindingly evident that a man lived what he wrote.
I make the case Dr. Paul is for the Constitution.
You ask us to believe that Dr. Paul who's unfaltering service to America in the Congress wrote those letters. You weigh those letters against his defense of the Constitution, his authored books, his speeches, interviews, and most of all his conduct. A conduct that is exemplary in every way imaginable, Ron Paul lives the Constitution. Your writings only strengthen the resolve of freedom loving Americans. He has shined the light on the central government who by design or unwittingly is taking our rights.
You, and the voice of similarly minded men are venom.
http://www.americanchronicle.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49862
I find this to be a pretty good defense to the Paul accusations.
Your article lacks a lot of info and draws a lot of lines that do not exist. It is very misleading to a reader who is not educated on the topic. Nice journalism :P You should apply for fox news.
bad judgement? competence?
This article comes up all the time during this debate. If the man is running for President why doesn't he address these issues head on? He's taking responsibility and not taking responsibility at the same time. Having things published under your name for a couple of years without reading them would probably require serious damage control, for the content of the articles and for the leadership skills shown, as you reentered politics - and as pointed out in above link this has come up now for 10 years. Paul has LOTS of money for this campaign and a large pool of volunteers to spread his message. If he rejects the foul statements published under his name, then say so loud and clear with a big media buy, make it part of his message. As he doesn't do that, he appears to be playing both sides of the street. And it's a very sinister street.
Another question. Why do the Paul supporters degenerate into insulting flame wars at the drop of a hat? Like the truthers, you guys have the intellectual and social skills of a little kid screaming 'There IS a Santa Claus! THERE IS'
Rather than insulting every website that crosses you why not get DR Paul to stop avoiding the issue. I wouldn't support him anyway as I find much of the rest of his program is ill advised, but he does oppose the war and the more adult libertarian stances are very attractive.
This is probably all history as it is now clear that DR Paul has generated enormous noise on the internet but no real support in the Republican Party where not wanting to slaughter Muslims is a deal breaker.
As for the Fox News crack, do you guys actually read anything that's not in your chamber of echos? Get out of the house more without your Ron Paul signs.
He's a saint
If he'd stuck to Evaluation of Renal Biopsy in Pregnancy Toxemia". Obstetrics and Gynecology 3 he'd be more interesting though there's always the possibility it's a anti-choice screed.
The gold standard? A truly bad idea.
'Is Dr. Paul perfect, no one is, well one but he was killed.'
Let me guess, Buddy Holly?
Freedom at all costs!
I live in nanny state Europe. For the most part I go along with my comfortable, sheltered, urban life. What I find troubling is the insistence of the government to protect me from harm. This is an insistence, which, for the most part, robs me of the right to protect myself. The problem is that it fails miserably in dealing with the lethal threat of urban youth (black, white, green and orange, Jewish, Christian and scientologist, fat, thin, pretty and ugly)
The leviathan however is highly successful in dealing with sheep like me who dare to question the PARKING GESTAPO. It is well prepared with extreme force to deal with mice whilst letting the elephants go free.
This is what democratic America has in store for the US. The GOP is no different. Whilst I cannot endorse the bigoted comments above, Ron Paul from a policy perspective is the only logical candidate of FREEDOM. In the absence of anyone else bringing this message to a mass audience, Ron Paul is my candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhrkG63wPA
first they attack habeas corpus. we give in. next thing every aspect of your life is controlled by policy makers 1000s of miles away
Yes, exactly...
Freedom from the likes of YOU!
"Lethal threat of urban youth"? "Parking gestapo"?
Right, parking regulations are the equivalent of the Holocaust, good thinking!
One ill selected use of
One ill selected use of hyperbole and I am cast (in tone) into the holocaust denial, kkk movement.
How sad! Whilst I am none of the above and will treat your comments with the same contempt as they were written, childish, unnecessary cheap shots like that only serve to bolster the ranks of the aforementioned groups.
So here is the point I was trying to make before I had to hastily defend myself against your implied accusations of anti Semitism:
I was attacked by a 15+ group of 10-16 yr olds. I was hit on the head with a scaffolding pole and have to run for my life (perhaps you don't consider this lethal enough). These kids run amok and the police have no solution. Woe betides any individuals or groups who take the law into their own hands. When my wife went into labour and my parking meter expired my car was towed. £250 fine. That’s $500 for a minuscule parking violation. I thought my argument was justified. The reality: pay or prison
Actually that was TWO...
...ill-selected uses of hyperbole. I didn't call you anti-Semitic, but if the shoe fits...
Defend your right to gun down ten-year-olds! Vote Ron Paul!
if the shoe fits.... "gun
if the shoe fits....
"gun down ten-year-olds" putting words in my mouth
go to hell you sad little man
Well, then...
...what did you mean, I wonder?
At least you sound like a scared law-and-order white guy who's been mugged. Maybe you can disabuse your pals here who seem to think your hero isn't "right-wing"...
more of an annoyed white guy
more of an annoyed white guy who was attacked for amusement.
the problem with "law and order". people in our society don't take resposiblity for themselves, their children and/or their communities. instead problems which can only be solved at family and community level are handed over to distant law makers who employ judgemental, jump to conclusion types like yourself to deal with issues they don't understand.
people, in spite of all the health warnings, eat themselves into insulin deprived comas and i pick up the bill. they smoke themselves into the cancer wards and who pays for the treatment. people drive suv's and look to the govt to occupy country X,Y and Z to quench the thirst for oil. (our children and grandchildren will settle that account)
adults stand back and wait for the government to tell them what they may and may not put into their bodies. 70% of us oppose the war yet they are preparing the draft lining up iran. i am sick and tired of this. i dont care anymore about who wrote what! i am looking at the policies of ron paul. they are policies i agree with and in the absence of other candidates to deliver this message he has my vote!
Guns, Psychotropic Meds, and school shootings
O.K.
So let the government gun us down. Ruby Ridge?
Why isn't the media reporting about the fact that the mass killers are on psychotropic drugs for "mental illness".
"Get rid of the guns", or, "when is enough, enough", and, "ban all guns".
Nobody questions the giant Pharmaceutical companies roll in this at the governmental level. They are making a KILLING selling poison (no pun intended).
Only RON PAUL fights against them!
Did you read any of that?
You couldn't have read the piece, or any of the Ron Paul response pieces, or Ron Paul's direct response on CNN or the NAACP comming out on his side... because over a month ago, when this piece hit to hurt Dr. Paul right before key primaries, it didn't stick because we knew it to be false.
You've just shown that this blog is no longer to be trusted, but Ron Paul is. That's the dilemma of smearing Ron Paul... once you do it, we don't believe you anymore... him we still do. lol
Ron Paul Newsletter
Dude,
Have you read anything he's personally written. You will come to the conclusion he did NOT write those letters.
Judge the man by his actions, he is a Great American.
his latest book(he's published more than ten)
REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO - a book by Ron Paul
Sadly, the top three
Sadly, the top three contributors to Ron Paul are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force. It is sad that so many of our brave serviceman are in the dark about the "real" Congressman Ron Paul. My only hope is that our troops will read about these nasty newsletters and ask for their money back. Thank you for exposing the fraud that is Ron Paul. Keep up the good work, Bill.
Have you taken notice of the
Have you taken notice of the NAACP Austin section, who knows Paul since many years, statement? (Hint: it was very positive). Have you read last year that he considered Walter Williams as a possible running mate? As to "anti-Semitism": Are you aware under whose' influence Dr. Pauls is: Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Von Hayek etc. (all Jews) and which politicians he is connected with (Barry Goldwater Sr and Jr as well as Dr.Murray Sabrin, his friend since more than 20 years, whose parents were the only in their family to survice the Holocaust).
Now, if you still call Dr. Paul a whack job after these facts, there you are a clear nutjob.
Bill Weinberg
Don't watse your time defending Dr. Paul against Bill Weinberg, a Communist / fascist / Israeli lobbyist who is doing his best to please his corprate pay masters. Truth is a foreign concept to him, Zionism is his doctrine of choice and liberty is the cloak he uses to destroy and distort the truth.
My corporate pay-masters...
...are invited to use the PayPal link to your left.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe I just disagree with you? No, I must be in the pay of Communist/fascist/Israeli lobby.
Disagreement is one thing.
Disagreement is one thing.
Labelling someone who you don't know by implication as a bigoted, anti emetic racist, gunning down ten years olds is totally different.
I didn't post anonymously. I put my name to my analysis for you to then resort to classroom tactics is thoroughly unprofessional
"Anti emetic"?
You mean he is opposed to throwing up?
But I do know him. Unless you think those quotes are all fabricated...
this is like debate with a teenager.
you couldn't resist jumping all over that typo! perhaps i'll leave a few more of them in here to make your day.
here's a question for you. ron paul highlughts some issues which are pretty close to my heart. loss of HC, patriot act, imperialist foreign policy, irresponsible fed, corporate healthcare. i assume that one or two of these issues are things that you would like the next president to address.
okay so you detest the bigoted comments which came out of one of his publications. which one of the candidates running are you then going to endorse or vote for?
the 2nd question is how else do we get a libertarian message out there? who in your opinion would make a better candidate?
haven't you heard?
obviously you are either not well informed or you are ignoring the truth or you are flat out lying, this man is clearly NOT the one who wrote those things, and had been open and honest about the whole thing. research things a little better next time and get some balls to tell the truth!
Ron Paul
The quotes taken out of context sound really bad. A few sites have provided the whole context, and though politically incorrect, aren't racist. Besides, no one in the beltway beleives he ever said or wrote those things. Even the Austin president of the N.A.A.C.P. who has known Ron Paul for 20 years doesn't think Ron's a racist. I'd be more concearned about McCain. Afterall, he's the frontrunner, and so far he's referred to the Iranian people as terrorists, likes to use the word gooks. And of course, singing bomb, bomb, Iran to the tune Barbra Anne. But hey, as long as you're prowar, you can say no wrong.
"Context"?
Do you care to explain in what "context" it is OK to warn of an impending race war, give instructions on how to cover your tracks in gunning down black youth, and make mean-spirited jokes about people with AIDS?
This should be very interesting. We're waiting...
How about, McCain is
How about, McCain is recorded saying it. Ron only has his words to it in a newsletter.
"I am a retard" - Bill Weinberg
Look, Bill Weinberg called himself a retard so he must be a retard! This is crazy logic. It is not as verifiable as watching McCain saying bomb Iran and making assumptions on what the middle east can trade with us.
You lose creditability and logic points here.
Editorial responsibility
Search through every article and post on this website. You will find not a word I will not take full responsibility for. With the partial exception of comments explicitly attributed to readers—and even there, I will not approve posts nearly so ugly as the crap that appeared in Ron Paul Political Report. Though some of the garbage you guys have been posting here comes close.
Of course, if I stopped approving your noise, you'd cry censorship.
ron paul
You really think anyone gonna buy your smear here people know who ron paul is , you in the media are trying your best to smear ron paul sorry not gonna work, we wokeup to your types in the media. you failed us on the 911 coverup too.
You who are controled. in our eyes your the terror in america. the media.
"The media"--everyone's favorite bugaboo
Right, never mind responding to the arguments or facts—just accuse us of being "the media"... as if this struggling website was CNN...
Who is Bill Weinberg?
Struggling for something?
Perhaps you don't read much.
Ron Paul is the best friend a minority
could have. He spends his life defending
individual liberty.
He wants to end injustice.
And restore America to the rule of law and the Constitution.
You are tripping over your own feet here.
Take a look at the people behind the attack.
You will find some answers.
And a lot of dirt.
Clean your shoes my friend.
You have a lot of walking to do.
I am Bill Weinberg
My bio is right here.
Right, restoring my constitutional right to gun down ten-year-olds. Way to go.
your Bio
Wow! 25 years of running in place. 25 years of not making a difference. 25 years - where did all the time go? I only wish 25 years ago you realized that you have a pea brain and no ability to put together a cogent argument. 25 years? I'm sure you don't have another 25 - you below to the city Billy. Don’t you feel so small some times?
I "below to the city"?
I love being told I'm a "pea-brain" by someone who can barely write...
Attacking...
...typos is about as juvenile as you can get. TC obviously meant "bellow".
It has been my experience that those who have to attack typos in a post rather than the content of the post have little to go on.
Gods help you if you screw up and hit the wrong key while passionately typing something....wait...oh that's right, there is an "approval cue" here, meaning that you can censor anything that you don't like or...more importantly...have no witty remarks for.
Wups, I mispelt
Oh, oh, wups.
Puttiin people down for spellin wrng does not make your arguments (SMEARS) against Dr. Paul any more best.
pee brain.
nanny nanny boo-boo
i don't care if gays go back to the closet. i just don't want them in my direct line of sight. not because they are gay but because it sub-categorizes them and makes them a singled out group. marginalized. separate. divided. excluded. targets. the same is true for blacks. hispanics. mentally retarded. that being said, if it would come to light that bill weinberg was a gay afro-hispanic jew with mild mental retardation, i would hesitate to comment on a blog that he{or she} may have posted. since i am all FOR personal FREEDOMS and the RIGHT TO EXIST AS ONE SEES FIT along with practicing the yet still protected 1ST amendment to the CONSTITUTION that only exists because of the 2ND AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION, i say,"you go girl"!!
the only thing i may add to the love and support i give you is that sometimes in life, some things go terribly wrong. because of this blanketed statement, if it involves gunning down a 10 year old in need of being gunned down then so be it. maybe if we were allowed to discipline our children{no point in bringing up .."spare the rod, spoil the child..."}it would not have gotten to this point.
oh yea.... almost forgot,
those amendment thingies i mentioned above?..........
which candidate for POTUS will best protect them come 00:00 on 1/20/09?
His Bio infers he is an Indian Anarchist
...who doth protest too much
Ron Paul wants to end War on Drugs
Dear author,
Right-wing nutjob? Are you joking mate?
Please explain how it is "right-wing" to want to end the war on drugs and legalise marijuana, as Ron Paul does.
Come on, I'm interested in seeing you wiggle your way out of this one without falling back on intellectual bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy is all yours
Paul is a right-wing libertarian. He doesn't even deny that. The Libertarians argue that the same principles that uphold marijuana legalization also uphold their prescriptions for radical economic deregulation. You are betraying your ignorance.
Get a grip. If you're a
Get a grip. If you're a libertarian you can't be right-wing. Libertarianism is about freedom, and that means adopting both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' positions.
Did I not just point out to you that Ron Paul is against the War on Drugs? That's a left-wing position, not a right-wing one. Likewise, being anti-war is a left-wing position.
I'd love it if you could point me to a source for your claim that Paul has admitted he is a "right wing libertarian". I think you're just making this up -- but I'd like to see some evidence if you have it.
Trying to pigeonhole Ron Paul as right-wing/left-wing demonstrates you know absolutely nothing about libertarianism.
You want to argue about what libertarianism is, go to a site where libertarians hang out and start asking questions, instead of making stuff up.
You are hopelessly confused
You are confusing personal with economic issues. I suggest you take this test.
Radical Economic Deregulation is what we need!
A true free market system lets the market work through those issues.
Im not saying we shouldnt regulate certain things, just that right now, we have TOO much regulation which strangles free markets.
True Liberals, want more and more regulation as it is the logical response to a market that exhibits injustice or unfairness to the regular Joe.
The problem is, regular Joe doesnt do his homework. He ends up getting shafted because he is ignorant and expect the Government to protect him. (You mean I can get a mortgage for 1% !! where do I sign)
We over-regulate, raise cost, cant compete, our jobs go elsewhere, and our economy suffers. (Sound familiar?)
The pain of such efforts would be almost too much to bear, but it will be easier than a failed currency.
The Germans went through that, and well you know how that turned out.
Freedom to Facism! Scary thought.
What's Important
It appears that the fact that Paul is the only candidate who opposed the war, who supports an immediate withdrawal and end to this war that has wasted billions, destroyed America's reputation, killed thousands of innocents and crushed civil liberties is not very important compared to the fact that he has been associated with some nasty newsletters and unseemly people in the past. Never mind the fact that all he has talked about for the last decade is defending the rights of all individuals. Interesting choice of priorities! Better to vote for a war mongerer, sure (including those who speak against the war but continue to fund it).
What's important?
Opposing racism isn't "important"? You'll support any candidate who says what you want to hear on the war, regardless of what else they say? You guys must also love Pat Buchanan.
Where's the video/audio evidence that Paul is racist?
Bill, you're engaging in demagoguery, plain and simple. Even Paul's fiercest opponents don't claim that he is himself a racist. At the most, they say that he was an idiot for not properly supervising what was written by paid staffers in his newsletters. And Paul admitted he made a mistake in not being more careful with what went out under his name.
But you've gone one step further by claiming that Dr Paul is himself a racist, in spite of the fact that no one has stepped forward to verify this claim. This goes even further than the New Republic article.
So, where is your exclusive scoop? Have you got a video clip where Paul expresses racist views? Come on, don't leave us hanging. We're all waiting to see what you've got.
Or are you just throwing out defamatory statements and then pretending you're right because Paul has better things to do than sue (like get re-elected to Congress)?
huh?
Where did I say that racism isn't important? You are so amateurish. By prioritizing the war you try to paint me as a racist.
On the scale of things, if I had to choose between a candidate who was anti-war but questionable on race vs. a candidate who would continue the war but was stronger in terms of his/her race record, of course I would choose the anti-war candidate. The destruction caused by the war is incomparable. In addition, while the President was only some impact on race issues, he has total control over stopping the war.
What's wrong with Pat
What's wrong with Pat Buchanan now. Yes, I like him. See for yourself: http://www.theamericancause.org/ .
Deal with this fact and stop with the ad hominem attacks
The president of the Austin NAACP has said that he has known Ron Paul for 15 years and he neither wrote these words nor does Dr Paul think like this. Add that to the fact that Dr Paul is endorsing Dr Murray Sabrin of New Jersey for the US Senate. I think Murray, Dr Paul's friend of 30 years, is in fact Jewish.
Argue using these facts and stop with the baseless attacks.
http://ronpaulchronicles.com/
"Baseless attacks"?
All I did was quote the man's own words. You got a problem with that?
The words aren't his
How about I go over to my site and write an article about how the holocaust never happened and put Bill Weinberg's name on it.
Does that mean you are a denier?
You are a miserable hump.
Excuse me!
You will find no Holocaust-denial crap on this website which bears my name as editor! All that racist garbage did appear in "Ron Paul's Political Report"! What the hell don't you guys get?
There is no excuse for you.
How about some script kiddy hacks into your pathetic little site, posts a article saying you like to touch little boys. Are you responsible for someone hijacking your website, yes. Are you a pedophile, no. You take responsibility for not protecting your website enough, you don't embrace being a pedophile. That is what Ron Paul has done. He has admitted that the articles were released under his named without his permission and taken responsibility for allowing it happen. He is not a racist. You will probably not respond to this however. I have seen your pattern of response. Anyone with a reasoned response, you refuse to respond to. Anyone who makes a small mistake because they don't have a built in grammar or spell checker in their browser, you brow beat for their errors. Your attacks are petty and those of a school yard bully. Which is probably a fascinating subject for your psychotherapist.
Disingenuous garbage
Did Paul ever assert that Ron Paul's Political Report had been hijacked by outside hostile forces? No, he just lamely said he didn't write the offending screeds, and offered no explanation or concern as to how they got there. That is a 100% bogus analogy.
Nonsense Bill and you know it.
Baseless,
Ron Paul has never uttered in public or in his writings such gibberish. You ought to know this.
People ask yourself why Bill writes to discredit Dr. Paul and not mention his platform.
Bill this won't stop.
Yeah, I got a problem with that
What are you going to do about it? lol. You sound so tough. You didn't quote his words, by the way. You quoted the words of some douche writer, who wrote for a newspaper 100 miles away from where Paul lived, 20 years ago. Good job crack journalist. Now I see why you have so many upstanding newspapers in your bio.
Hysterical, knee-jerkers like you are the reason we keep getting Bushes and Clintons. Take a bow, freak.
Enjoy being drafted :)
Oh by the way, if you have a opinion on Ron Paul I recommend being more civil next time if you want to be taken seriously. Calling a 10-term Congressman who has served in the military for his country a "wackjob" really makes me wonder about your intelligence. Show a little respect, and perhaps read his policy on racism next time:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
Anyway, I encourage you to vote for Obama, Hillary or John "100 years in Iraq" McCain if you're interested in being drafted for the coming war in Iran. I mean, personally I'd be against being sent to die because a politician said so, but I see you clearly prefer it, give you're so against the only anti-war candidate left in the race.
Enjoy -- I live in Australia so I won't be affected.
So this is what you support?
To those who believe that pulling our troops out of Iraq will create chaos causing the Middle East to explode and destroy Israel.
If we as a nation continue on our path of borrowing our dollars from “T” Bond sales to finance our excess spending…In addition to the bond sales, we take our excess Social Security payments and throw it into the pot replacing the dollars with bonds. So there is not a pot of money anywhere within the Federal Government.
This creates:
A Nation Debt of 9.2T that’s $9,200,000,000,000
With the baby boomers retiring and the Social Security payments will incrementally increase we will need 54T that’s $54,000,000,000,000 to balance the payments by the year 2040…Our future generations will be saddled with a payment that they will never be able to pay!
Our infrastructure, Highways, Bridges, Dams, Water Systems, Sewage Systems and etc are in deplorable condition we need 1.5T that’s $1,500,000,000,000.
So to become fiscally responsible we need to have 64.7T that’s $64,700,000,000,000 by the year of 2040…32 years from now!
So that means we have to generate an additional 2T that’s $2,000,000,000,000 per year in revenues to the Federal Government to catch up in 32 years!.
Each year that we delay payment we grow an additional $2T of debt!
The Federal Government doesn’t generate enough tax revenues to pay the additional $2T even if they shut down all departments and eliminated all jobs!
After 6 years the religous fanatics are still blowing themselves up and killing innocent people as they will be doing 60-100 years from now! We can't stop it nor will we ever be able to! We have trained the Iraqi's to police themselves and it is time we allow them to do it! It is up to them to either survive as a free nation or fail...Financially breaking us is not an option!
Israel won’t survive if we don’t survive!
ATTN. RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!
This website has an approval queue for comments.
If your comment does not appear immediately, it is because we haven't approved it yet.
Do NOT re-post. Comments which are posted more than once will be deleted.
School shootings
Bill,
Campus shootings,
Question: Anti-Depresion Drugs common denominator for all campus shooters, why isn't the Media reporting on this?
Ban guns or Ban Psychiatric medications?
Food for thought.
Oh, go RON!
Here's a guy calling for
Here's a guy calling for truly radical changes to our government and you want to talk about some old newsletters of questionable origin?! This is like taking George Bush to task for his wardrobe!
C'mon, a person guy like you, armed with a cogent ideology, should have no trouble pointing out the obvious fallacies of insane, deceitful, disasterous notions like individual freedom, limited government, non-interventionism, and strict adherence to the Constitution. That's the siren song that enchants Paul followers. You can't fight these intoxicating ideas with something as pedestrian as the newsletter story!
"questionable origin?"
Are you accusing New Republic of having fabricated these quotes? I wonder why Paul hasn't sued for libel, in that case...
Defensive much?
The newsletters were of questionable origin, not the quotes. The point is Dr. Paul has never, NEVER said anything like this in his entire political career. He was not the writer of the newsletter, but he takes full responsibility for the racist remarks. I'm sure it cost him many votes, because people like you hear the rhetoric but never try to find the whole story. THE BIG POINT! NONE of those words you quoted were written by Ron Paul. PERIOD. It went out in a newsletter with his name on it. That sucks. BUT he did not write it. Disagree with that and I will have to say you are ignoring facts and this is just a ploy to keep anti-war left voters away from Paul. Good luck with that.
Questionable Origin Indeed.
The newsletters that the New Republic article is referring to are from the 1980s. Ron Paul admitted that they were published in his name, but he, as well as just about everyone on both sides of the aisle in the Beltway have asserted time and time again that they were written by someone who, after garnering an initial OK from Paul (for the articles in early newsletters under the same title that glorified individual freedoms and made no mention of race, sexuality, or any other such devisive material). As was the custom with many "'zines" in the 80s, Paul allowed the writer to continue publishing in his name.
That said, the writer admittedly took "liberties" (pardon the bad pun) with the use of Ron Paul's name, using it to fabricate an endorsement of despicable views on race, gender, sexuality, and other such issues. Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for those articles ever since his 1988 Libertarian Presidential Campaign, and both pro- and anti- Paul factions have agreed that these accusations have no basis in the real-life morals or beliefs of Dr. Paul himself.
One has to wonder why the writer of this blog is so adamant about using the contents of the newsletters as a weapon against Ron Paul. This is especially true when one thinks of one of Paul's (and ONLY Paul's) biggest agenda items. Currently, but rule of precedent (not law) a U.S. citizen is not allowed to will his or her property to a Native American nation, as a result of a catastrophically bad interpretation of the concept of Imminent Domain. Part of Paul's platform is the striking down of that ruling, restoring full ownership and property rights to the individual, and allowing, with no interference from the federal government, a person to will his or her property to whomever (or whatever, as in an organization such as a tribe or nation) he or she so chooses.
The first candidate in 233 years to come along who wants to give free reign for a concept that could restore the lands of the U.S. to those who were here first, and a so-called "Native American Anarchist" is launching into outdated character assassination attempts? That's rather sad, in my not so humble opinion.
Apologies
Ahem. The newletters cited were from post-1988, but similar allegations were raised at that point as well, but, again, no credence was given to them, and those newsletters never physically surfaced.
people and ideas
The article attempts to dismiss the candidacy of RP on primarily ad hominem grounds...and they are pretty darn stinky grounds to be sure. i mean come on, how could RP NOT have an inkling of what was going out under his name? i have no trouble picturing him in the South of Texas rubbing elbows with the vanguard of racist supremacism and radical Libertarian law-of-the-jungle absolutist dominating wife-beating white guys, and if he was only pandering to them to get elected, he still bears responsibility for that choice. I consider that an even worse character trait than owning up to the ideas. RP has 'taken responsibility' but failed to convince me of his genuine disgust and desire to repudiate it, he really has tried to shrug it off. so yes, his character is highly questionable. (and his candidacy promptly died as a result)
but getting back to the ideas that RP has put forth, (which SHOULD be the point of discussion so that the body politic can actually move in an informed and intelligent direction, rather than clinging to childish visions of the white-knight/benevolent dictator model), why don't you write an article pointing out the failings of the current published ideas that RP has put forward? to me, they are unquestionably the right direction to go, with some tweaking. it is a shame that they have been effectively dismissed by emotion-based articles like this one or ignored entirely. the other white knights out there have their share of skeletons in the closet and get a free ride simply because they aren't promising to rock the gravy train for any significant constituencies.
Sue you for libel?
Ron doesn't play those games man and you know it.
Real Americans don't go around suing everybody they can just because.
That's for city slickers, it's whats dragging this country down. I'm going to sue you, waaah!
The Moral story: white Gentiles who discriminate are honkys
Our species is a predatory species, which means we enforce alpha/beta relationships between groups.
A beta race fears discriminating for fear of punishment.
An alpha race is encouraged to discriminate, often encouraged to.
What Mr. "Weinberg" hates about the honky David Duke is that he opposes the beta status of Europeans.
Interesting, because I bet Mr. "Weinberg" supports the apartheid state of Israel, a country that is a cross between South African apartheid, Jim Crow, with many laws reminescent of Nazi Germany. (See Pres. Carter's book Peace Not Apartheid).
Give 'em enough rope...
...and they always hang themselves.
I'm sure Jimmy Carter will appreciate this ringing endorsement of his book from Mr. Alpha Race.
article
nothing to see here folks, just another socialist spouting his moronic views. this site is powered by may first (a communist holiday) a union sponsored site.
Weinberg
If you want to know what Weinberg is about just read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: The Israel Lobby. Because Dr Paul is for equality for all it would interrupt the cozy Israel Lobby relationship which is robbing us of liberty. Weinberg, Murdoch, and the others are deathly afraid, and they use the mainstream media, which they control, to either berate Dr Paul (Weinberg, Malkin, etc) or don't mention him (Murdoch: the name Ron Paul has been totally absent in the NY Post). But a roundhouse is comin' at ya, Weinberg. By the name of Obama.
American first, soldier second
This is a good read, enjoy, and give feedback.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/012808.html
Give you enough rope.
Bill,
Just because people come to a conclusion one way or another on Israel doesn't mean their Anti-Semites, or Pro-Semites.
I think many Americans are Neutral-Semites. I don't get any joy from Arabs being dominated by Israel or the killing of Israelis by suicide bombers.
I'm an American and want my country to have the best, just like Israelis want the best for themselves.
Nuetral.
R
Racists...
I thought these racist f**ktards believed that all the non-white races were animals? Now we are all animals. Nice.
If I am a predatory animal, then I should use my instincts, elevated intellect and superior size to eliminate the competition from other lesser species. Awesome. I suppose that I will start the RRR...The Rusty's Race is Right. This species Rustificus Correctus, is known to inhabit the Midwest United States and pray on Fascists, Anarchists, and Fluff Bunnies of all pursuasions. Its favored prey is KKK members and the occasional Neo Nazi Skinhead.
...Come, join our cause...
Ron Paul is still the best
There no doubt that those article have no relation to Ron Paul. If so, the other candidate or his people in Texas would know it first. Kirchick is just being paid a lot to do sabotage. Think, why would the media censors Paul so badly.Its a publishing error.
A libertarian cannot be a racist and Ron Paul is a libertarian. Figure it out yourself. He's thinking is more like Noam Chomsky, and his economy plan is an Austrian theory. Thinkers of Austrian theory like Von Mises. One Austrian economist, Murray N Rothbard has the old right position. People like Ron Paul hates so much people like Wiliam F Buckey the neo conservatives, the so called COLD WARRIORS, the cold war proponents.
Nota bene Murray Rothbard might take it to to anarchist thinking.
"No relation"?
Ron Paul has "no relation" to what he wrote in Ron Paul's Freedom Report? You want to explain that one?
The letters
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49862 Dear assclown blogger - please read.
Smear
No,
you are the one who still has to explain that Ron Paul actually wrote those articles or at least knew everything they contained. He was not the editor, he was the publisher. So do your own homework first.
Mr. Weinberg:
"Ron Paul has "no relation" to [...] Ron Paul's Freedom Report? You want to explain that one?
That has been has been explained, repeatedly over the past month. Please read this FAQ:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435.html
Will this never end?
Don't you guys have any ability to detect bullshit at all?
The newsletters bore his name. If he now wishes to deny responsibility for what appeared in them, he is a spineless little weasel.
Nuff said.
This conversation is over. Move on, folks.
Why bother...
... to even write an article smearing Ron Paul at all? It's not like he's even in the race; or a threat of getting the nomination. No one even knows who he is until I tell them. Maybe because he is a threat to big corporate? I voted for him and will continue to fight for OUR freedom, not some other country's freedom. I will vote Ron Paul in the general election regardless. And I will be there for the Ron Paul March on DC this summer. God bless America... we will win the war against our Constitution. Go Ron Paul!
Not really why I am even bothering to reply.
Wow, what an article. Not really sure what axe you have to grind but have at it. Here are some facts for you to consider: The United States is $9 Trillion in debt. Our so called leaders have taken actions for the last 80 years that are going to end our country as we know it. Whether they intentionally want a one world government or if their misplaced ideas just happen to push us towards a one world government by happenchance I do not know, but that's where we are heading. What is the common thread between all these people from different political parties and beliefs? They are seem to be members of the Council for Foreign Relations.
If you really think Ron Paul is a racist or gay basher then go ahead, that's one thing we still all have - the right to our opinions - I find your opinionated tripe absurd.
You guys scare me!
It takes sense and goodwill to see and do the right things.
You guys have neither, I suspect.
American Libertarianism is mostly a cover for Old Rightists who can't stomach the evangelicals, Zionists, and plutocrats who dominate the modern Right here.
Lew Rockwell is well reputed to have written most of the offending material in Ron Paul's newsletters.
His site is so full of offensive, increasingly pro-fascist material, that it takes a strong stomach just to read it.
Ron Paul thinks the Confederacy was right and that the abuses of liberty by the Federal Government are abuses only because the Feds are doing them.
If a state wants to pass abusive legislation, then that's fine with Ron Paul.
Libertarianism has been a shelter for cranks and cultists for as long as anyone can remember.
Check out Ayn Rand's crazy Objectivist cult if you don't believe me.
Anarchism is just as full of cranks, but its relationship to Libertarianism is the same as that of the Left to the Right: they're both full of persons who want to violate your freedom, but the Right is full of persons who are motivated by resentment and that makes them much more dangerous.
I disagree with Bill on many things, and I'm no Leftist, but he's right on target with this one and if you can't see it then I think it's time to move on and leave his Web site to others.
Confederacy...
What we have here is how information becomes falsehood.
Paul said, and quite correctly, that the commencement of the Civil War over the secession of the states that made up the Confederacy was unconstitutional.
The understood (at the time) rights of states to enter and leave the US at their own discretion (with re-entry, of course, subject to the approval of the other states and the constituency of the state in question) was widely believed at the time. In fact, the Constitution does not mention secession, a fact that is not lost on Constitutional scholars. The flat truth, ugly or pretty, is that if the Constitution does not explicitly reserve a right for the federal government, the federal government does not have that right. Legally, without a constitutional amendment, the federal government is not even permitted to attempt to usurp those rights.
Lincoln did a great deal of good for this country when he freed the slaves and started Reconstruction of the South after the Civil War, but he set a dangerous precedent that his successors on both sides of the aisle have abused. By his de facto nullification of states' rights and the establishment of the federal government in the role of micromanagement, he set the stage for the suspension of what the constitution deems "inalienable" rights.
Now, let's take a look at the word "inalienable".
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines inalienable thusly:
in·al·ien·a·ble /ɪnˈeɪlyənəbəl, -ˈeɪliə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
That breaks down to "these rights cannot and should not, under rule of law, be taken away for any reason". Since Lincoln, our esteemed leaders have taken liberties with our liberties, usually using "national security" or "war" as the reason.
Because of his freeing of the slaves and having the courage and stamina to deal with the greatest socio-political crisis this country has ever faced, Lincoln will be and should be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents this country has or ever will have.
Because of his arrogance toward, disregard for, and loose interpretation of the Constitution and the usurping of states' rights, he should also be remembered as one of the most damaging. The precedents he set led to many of the ills that liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike bemoan.
As far as your statement "If a state wants to pass abusive legislation, then that's fine with Ron Paul." You are way off base. Breaking things down to a regional level for the microcosm rather than the macrocosm ensures the the collective morals of an area (in this case, each state) are reflected in its laws. As it stands now, 3 to 5 states are so population heavy that they are able to flex their muscles and force every citizen in the US to follow their leads, whether for good or for ill. THAT is the very definition of pathetic. There are a lot more states than California, New York, and Texas, and many of those states' citizens, as a whole, do not share even a modicum of the views of the citizens of the big three.
Prior to the Civil War, citizens were oppressed much less. Slavery was not a product of racism in the modern sense. It was a product of a specific group of people actually believing that other human beings were intrinsically inferior and that those people were legally and in the psyche of the South, property. Their line of thinking could not have been more wrong, but it was the norm. We, as people who look at all races as being non-issues or that equality as the order of the day cannot possibly begin to grasp the philosophies in play in the mid to late 1800s.
Remember also that Lincoln, while morally opposed to the institution of slavery, had no plans to free the slaves while running for President. He ran on a platform that threatened, or was perceived to threaten, states' rights. Because of that, the fiercely independent Southern states began to, one by one, secede from the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move to unite what was becoming a frayed alliance between Northern Democrats, Republicans, and the remnants of the old Whig party. No, Lincoln was no revolutionary, he was a strategist.
armchair historians for Paul
Two quotes:
Breaking things down to a regional level for the microcosm rather than the macrocosm ensures the the collective morals of an area (in this case, each state) are reflected in its laws.
...
Prior to the Civil War, citizens were oppressed much less. Slavery was not a product of racism in the modern sense. It was a product of a specific group of people actually believing that other human beings were intrinsically inferior and that those people were legally and in the psyche of the South, property.
Wow ...
Do you see the connection? Another thing: population heavy? You're a history buff, read up on the Electoral College and get back to me with weighted towards the populated states analysis.
"Wow ... Do you see the
"Wow ...
Do you see the connection? Another thing: population heavy? You're a history buff, read up on the Electoral College and get back to me with weighted towards the populated states analysis."
I see the connection, but the origin of the racism of the pre-Civil War Era is the difference. Pre-Civil War, the focus of the racist was on Blacks' status as property rather than human beings. Racists in this day and age are fueled by resentment and fear. The slave owners had the right to shoot an offending slave. Now, Blacks can fight back and have just as many self-defense rights as a white person (presumably--although some would find this concept laughable in practice). Yes, I see the connection, but I also see the difference.
I well know what the Electoral College is. It is in place to defend the smaller population states from the larger states only during a Presidential Election. The Senate is where equality in legislation is supposed to occur. Unfortunately, what actually occurs is much different. The Electoral College was originally supposed to protect the direction of the country from the idiocy of the masses. The Electoral College was intended to elect a group of people who are educated and trusted by the populace to vote directly and independently (without the "winning of states", etc.) for the President and Vice President. Since the inception of the concept of running mates and the election of the President and VP on one ticket, the Electoral College has changed dramatically.
What I was referring to is when one state or a small caucus (as in "group", not the faux mini-primaries held in some states around this time of year) of states with morals and ideals as a whole that do not fit the "norm" for the rest of the nation. For instance the gay marriage issue. As it stands, most states (even traditionally "blue" states) have adopted a conservative stance when it comes to this issue. If states' rights were restored, then bastions of liberal ideals on the subject would be protected from federal interference. Sure, that could swing the other way, but the determination of right and wrong is made by the people who are governed, and should not be determined by the government that (supposedly) derives its authority from the people and maintains it by their consent.
Resentment...
Libertarianism has been a shelter for cranks and cultists for as long as anyone can remember.
Check out Ayn Rand's crazy Objectivist cult if you don't believe me.
Anarchism is just as full of cranks, but its relationship to Libertarianism is the same as that of the Left to the Right: they're both full of persons who want to violate your freedom, but the Right is full of persons who are motivated by resentment and that makes them much more dangerous."
No, the fact that they do not see things the way you do is what makes you believe they are dangerous.
Martin Luther King ...
Gosh, I didn't know that Martin Luther King did all those nasty things. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Here I thought he was a hero of the Civil Rights movement and was the catalyst for positive change ... but it turns out he was into sex with children.
Well, now that I know, everything is different. No sex deviant could possibly have done anything positive for his people. Clearly, the whole "I had a dream" story must have been made up.
Next thing I know you'll be telling me the heroic Kennedy brothers are/were into extra-marital sex or that they held women in low regard. What is a moral person to think?
Cadwaller
Good Point Cadwaller
Everybody is a mixture of good and bad.
The good works that somebody does are not negated by the bad.
If we were presumptuous enough to judge a person's overall merit we would measure both. But that would never negate the existance of the good work done.
Ron Paul
His internet cult of personality sure is creepy. They stalk the internet looking for articles that are simply critical of him and then call them slander. The main stream media is conspiring against him since they aren't reporting on him when the truth of the matter is that they have no real reason to report on a candidate who can't get more than 5% of the vote in any sort of major caucus. He doesn't have any real appeal for republicans, his fiscal policies are ridiculous, and social conservatives and neocons don't like him for obvious reasons. THe only appeal he has to the party is to small government conservatives, but in the wake of 9/11 they are probably the smallest faction of the big tent party.
His message is shallow and reactionary and he is nothing more than a fringe candidate, stop deluding yourselves into thinking that he could win anything more than a small percentage of the vote in a major election.
Uh, I won't answer in
Uh, I won't answer in whines. I'll answer in proof that will hopefully comfort you.
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
http://www.redpills.org/?p=758
Uh, and he really, really isn't a racist. It's just depressing if you say that. He devotes his life to restoring rights, not eroding rights. I wish you considered this, but your only in it for the hits to your website, to your ads.
Meh.
Classic Reader Manipulation
1. Start with a false premise. "Ron Paul: right-wing wackjob".
Your manipulation starts with intentionally choosing to ignore all of Ron Paul's verified "left-wing" and "moderate" positions. Your manipulation then continues by never actually making any case that Ron Paul himself is a "wackjob". Here are some verified "left-wing" Ron Paul positions:
- The Iraq war was not worth the price in blood and treasure. (Jan 2008)
- Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands. (Sep 2007)
- Give up American empire; that reduces debt without sacrifice. (Dec 2007)
- Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
- Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
2. Introduce guilt by association. Manipulate the reader by implying if racist type people support Ron Paul, Ron Paul must therefore also be racist.
I notice you have not been able to produce a single verified racist quote, audio, or video of Ron Paul considering Ron Paul has been in public life for 20 years. I also notice you ignore the fact that Ron Paul denounces these people's views. I also notice you avoid any of Ron Paul's verified history. I also notice you failed to note that NAACP President Nelson Linder has publicly stated he has known Ron Paul for 20 years and does not believe he is a racist. So, where is the evidence he is a racist? You don't have any do you? That is not really your game here. Your only intention is to introduce guilt by association and therefore manipulate the reader into a negative opinion of Ron Paul.
The definitive response
You didn't quote the "newsletters" You just quoted the ellipsis filled excerpts from the "pimply faced boy." For the definitive response see, http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_try...
you do not understand FREEDOM
If Ron is a wack job then so am I and so were our founders and every other liberty loving American. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Read up on libertarian philosophy and then stuff you name calling up your ass. If Ron Paul is a right wing wack you are a leftist socialist commie assmunch. No. I do not really think that, you are just a brain washed product of a runaway federal education system that values the new world order and a socialistic slave system of taxation over individual freedom and free markets. Lots of people who love freedom love Ron Paul but they may also support isms he does not. He values freedom over any ism and unlike your Democratic savior Obama, Ron Paul wants to end the discrimination and racist war on drugs as well as scams like NAFTA and central banking (which is a communistic concept we as American should reject)
News letters from 10 years ago are nothing compared with a 20 YEAR SERVICE in the US Congress hundreds of public speaches and 2 runs for president. If these news letters are the only thing you have from one of the most active people in the Congress over the last 30 years who has written about 10 books you are reaching and it shows what a pathetic person you are and how unconfortable you must really be in your socialistic globalist skin. Try freedom you might like it. Give it a chance people are really good and they do not need the heavy hand of Government to feed people or provide medical care to the poor.
Read Harry Browne's books "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World" or "Why Government doesn't Work" or "The Great Libertarian Offer"
I have read nothing Ron Paul has written that says he is a racist except for some low budget rehashed news letters that happen to have his name on the top. I could make some news letters right now that are called the Clinton Report and write all kinds of crap. It would not change their life time of public service or their actual record. Why should it change things for Ron Paul? Because the globalist CFR, Federal Reserve, IRS, millitary industrial complex, police state wants it that way. Any you are a lap dog in their service going around smearing an honest man who has given his life for individual freedom.
Booooo-ring!
This is old, boring news.
You communist shills out to be taken out and .....er... well... get the hell out of this country if you think we should be under UN rule.
You're trying to overthrow the government, the constitutional republic.
It is YOUR TYPE that are 'wackos'.
Weinberg the liberal whiner
Oh and od name for you, because you WHINE a lot about stupid things that don't matter.
Right wing is good... to protect us from those of you who would like to trash the republic.
You Should Join Ron Paul
...since you seem to be good attracting Ron Paul supporters
Freedom
Im certain that we disagree on Ron Paul the person. So I wont debate you on that.
What about the ideals? Limited gvt, sound money, non-intervention, freedom, civil liberties etc.
What is your position on the issues?
America is great because people like you are free to dig up and report what you want to get the information out to the people.
Our problem has become that we spend all of our time doing this type of "wedging" to bring people down to suit our own ideals, rather than support the nation , and our obligation to participate in government as a whole.
If everyone who posted here, or blogged here, spent the same amount of time on the street being active in their government, we wouldnt be heading to the place we are right now.
Sat what you want about the issues of Ron Pauls past. The TRUTH is, that the ideals he espouses and the policies he preaches are the only solution to what ailes us.
If you dont agree with his policy, then you do not support a Constitutional Republic. You want to live through world war 4. Good luck to you in that endeavor. Kevin
Yawn
What a train wreck of an article. Just some outdated anti-truth. Too late, too ignorant, too insignificant.
Ron Paul never wrote those words
Please read these:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worke...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018581.html
Those quotes were written by a ghost writer for Paul. When Paul left Congress and returned to his medical practice, he let others manage his newsletter for the purpose of making money for the Libertarian cause.
These allegations were brought up during Paul's 1997 Congressional run, and the Houston Chronicle agreed that Paul had never uttered anything like that in person; therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that he was not racist and did not write what you quoted.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq and reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback (read the 9/11 commission report; listen to what former CIA analysts have to say ie. find out who Michael Scheuer is and what he says: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-ba... ); the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb inflation; and the only candidate who won't allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little.
Ron Paul for President
Despite the factually incorrect smear attempt by the author, Ron Paul remains the most principled, honest man, experienced anti-war candidate in politics today. As such, he's my choice to lead us as president.
Seeking Truth
What happened with those letters was sad, and I wish it never happened, and so does Ron Paul. I mean, we can agree on that much right? I’m talking honesty here. Words of hatred have never come from Ron Paul's lips. Not one person has ever documented Ron Paul saying anything even remotely related to the derogatory comments in those letters. It is widely agreed that Paul did not write those letters. But, he did put his name out there, and others took advantage of it. What may be hard for people who don't like or don't understand Ron Paul is his response to those letters. He took responsibility for not monitoring what was written and he dealt with those writers. The writers of those letters were not let off the hook. If you know Ron Paul you know the issue was not taken lightly, nor were the writers thrown to the wolves by ousting them to the public. Crucifying them was not going to change their world views. Those of us in the fold believe that. Even those on the other side don't truly believe Ron is a racist, I mean c'mon, seriously, really? You think your going to convince anyone with an unbiased opinion of that? He just isn't, end of point. People are free to be as mad as hell that he wouldn't oust the ones responsible, but the man isn't a racist. I'm sorry he just isn't. When he speaks he quotes great freedom fighters of all races and creeds, and he speaks to individualism. Most importantly, Ron points out one of the most obvious ideologies that breeds racism. When we identify ourselves as members of groups we breed racism. When we give special attention to one group over another or enforce so called racial equality regulations such as affirmative action we are in fact reinforcing racism. For those who support using gov't in this manner it's a hard pill to swallow that they are in fact reinforcing racism. It is easier to go after the person that has brought this to light than admit to the inherent flaws of so called equality regulations. I will give one example, my wife is of a minority race and in grade school her and her fellow minority classmates had to stay behind while the white kids went on a field trip to find a new school to go to. It had been decide that her school had too many white students. That was the first day she learned about racism. She was loosing her classmates because of skin color and the gov't called it equality. Today she has been offered special grant money to start her own business because she is a minority, only reinforcing racism again. My wife is strong and intelligent and she doesn't need a hand-out to go into business for herself and she has refused that money. She says the whole idea disgusts her. We won't end racism until we treat each other as individuals.
correct - nothing to see here
adding confusion to error
Just what you get when someone can write, but has not done their homework.
Try to attend a better school Bill.
This is rich
A spastic provocateur worked up about a provocateur. I especially like how you skipped the part where the Paul campaign fired Randy Gray, because that doesn't comport with the picture you're trying to paint of Paul. Of course, it would have been appropriate to mention since you quoted his reaction to the firing. Only pussies are afraid of facts.
This is probably a waste of time. People as thoroughly dishonest as you don't need to be told they are dishonest. They don't even believe their own drivel.
Your mission statement
Reading this web site's mission statement, I would be curious to know who you believe would be a better candidate for the US presidency than Ron Paul.
Oh Billy, Billy, Billy....
25 years and no Pulitzer? And alas, with the publishing of this biased piece, I can bet not one coming. Yes, many awards Billy has received so you must listen to this Al Goldstein of journalism spit his filth. Any college Bill backing that unparalleled experience. You know they say experience is what you get when you don't spend time on an education.
Ron Paul
This article is having the effect it was meant to have....Distract you from the real issues. Find out about the man and make a decision. There is allot of info on Ron Paul if you really want to look. I've never seen a more honest and correct politician ever...Please take the time to find out about Ron Paul, don't let a 20 year old article written by someone else make your decision for you.... Just look at his voting record, it's an easy way to see his viewpoint and his solid record. If the President of NAACP coming out and saying Ron Paul is NOT Racist isn't good enough a debunk for you, well you must have issues, Far beyond anything Ron Paul.
VOTE RON PAUL 2008
It may be ugly, but defintely not garbage.
Sometimes the truth IS ugly, but that doesn't make it garbage. Wake up white people!
these articles are great for a laugh
You know, I try not to get baited into responding to pseudo-journalism such as this, but I just think it's funny that this guy begins his article saying that Paul talks a great line about Iraq but everything beyond that is nothing but hard-line racist rhetoric. It's truly hilarious really, and I have come to expect nothing more from these kind of hard-line socialistic sites. I love how you use Daily Kos as a source, that's priceless...Your assumption that the constitution grants the right to kill young children under the 2nd amendment in your silly replies back to your readers had me in stiches. Your understanding of racism is also very infantile. Racism is only racism when it comes from white, right wing groups, isn't it? Oh, I got it. Let's get the federal government to pass all kinds of laws granting gays, minorities, and women all kinds of special rights, that's the ticket! That'll take care of our racism problem right away! Just legislate until it's gone...Oh what's that little thing in the constitution about individual rights? I dunno, but it sounds to easy, we need different laws protecting different ethnic and social groups, oh, and let's have the federal government subsidize them as well! These groups are too weak and stupid to take care of themselves, so let's get them dependent on the nanny state quick! Wow, and look at that, the government has done such a WONDERFUL job of taking care of our poor disadvantaged groups in this country, I mean look at Katrina! Bang up job, FEMA! Welfare, public education and the War on Drugs has done such wonders for poor black people. Thanks, FED!
You know, instead of bringing up tired old newsletters that have been debunked time and time again and putting yourself on some kind of holier than thou pedestal thinking you are some kind of champion of humanity by being able to denounce racism, I would love to hear some solutions to combating racism that doesn't involve increasing the size of our lawbook or our government. But I doubt you are interested in any real kind of solution, all you really want is for the fight to wage on ad nauseum so you can feel good about yourself and the positivist rhetoric you preach.
Old News
IF you had requested a Google alert for Ron Paul, you would have been able to have written this article last year.
This has been addressed already. It is obvious that Dr. Paul could not have written those articles. After reading and watching everything I could on Dr. Paul,even going back to the 80s,It is obvious this isn't his nature. He does not advocate racism.
Ron Paul
Were you the one that wrote those dispicable articles in Ron Paul's newsletter? This story has an uncanny resemblance. Come out of the closet Mr. Nazi man.
Paultards
Paul has amassed a huge campaign chest through donations and now scaled his campaign back. Does he return the money? Open the books of his campaign? Run for reelection in Texas with the money? Suckers.
Does anyone find it entertaining that the only response to the quotes is to shout 'smear' over and over again? I've wasted a few nights surfing the Ron Paul issues and he's definitely racist, can't or won't deny it, and much of his small government platform is childishly libertarian or flat out bizarre. He was deeply involved with this for much of his career and if he has moved on he should address it publicly. Until he does the Paultards are in denial. They insist on the Ron Paul they want, not the Ron Paul they have. He should have used Obama's method and not said anything at all of substance. Then you could have Hope.
But ... there are a bunch of dorks on the web who wander around shouting smear!!!. Go DR Paul, go, run like the wind! whenever anyone tries to examine the obvious paper trail going back years. Publishes a racist magazine for years but that's OK, here's a video of him standing with a local politician who's black. LOOK, he's BLACK. It's a SMEAR!!!
Wake up children. Oh I forgot, a lot of you are 9/11 truthers, the intellectual equivalent of UFO nuts.
Ahem
Please show me where I, as a Ron Paul supporter, have done any of the things you have mentioned.
Apparently, by your logic, going about your arguments by calling names denotes intelligence?
Review your site's Mission Statement
It says; "Above all, we are committed to real journalism (as opposed to mere opinion-spewing and bloggery), and seek through our example to resist its alarming decline. We are fastidiously non-sectarian, and our first loyalty is always to the truth."
And then you go and quote the unverified blogging of James Kirchick?
Try reading the "truth" of Justin Raimondo's take on this clown Kirchick before you quote him and thus slander Ron Paul's good name whilst at the same time disregarding your site's Mission statement:
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/who_the_fck_is_james_kirchick
No personal attacks...just the "truth."
Fed Up
so what ???
so perhaps Ron Paul did write some politically-incorrect opinions. that doesn't bother me a bit. the only relevant question is whether what was written is true or not. are we to espouse the view that all blacks and all jews are perfect ?
my heritage is italian and i certainly don't get bent out of shape when the misdeeds of certain italians are discussed or reported. but then again i am intelligent and intellectually honest - and i don't derive my identity or self-respect from my group identity. God bless you Bill Weinberg.
charles ranalli
albuquerque
gravel kucinich paul nader
Nader Gravel & Paul Kucinich
Awake from your slumber
4 Wise Men march with the people
Washington DC
Whistleblowers
Honesty compassion intelligence guts
Not carrots sticks coercive diplomacy
Divided we fall
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
Ralph Nader
No bribery blackmail extortion
Rage against the machine
Democracy rising democracy now
Suffer not
really bad poetry to the rescue
Hey I like Kucinich, don't know enough about Gravel, Nader's an irrelevant egotist and if Paul's qualified to be President why did he allow all the nasty stuff into print? He wasn't paying attention? For years? 'So what if he said some politically incorrect things' ?!? Grow up children.
Or better yet why don't you guys form the 'Fringe Weirdo' party and get LaRouche involved? I can put up with the truthers and the Ron Paul cult as long as WE EXPOSE THE AREA 51 COVERUP!! And go back on the gold standard (an awful idea if there ever was one)
From the news
From CNN, Jan. 11:
And apparently isn't making it a priority to find out.
Gee, that's convincing.
Doesn't read what appears under his own name in his own newsletter?
I never thought I'd agree with David Gergen, but I couldn'ta said it any better myself. Later, Paul claims MLK, Rosa Parks and Gandhi as heroes, then says:
Well (as acknowledged), his opposition to the war on drugs (and the war in Iraq) is what makes him attractive (to the gullible). But the last line is utter bunk. Racists have always used "libertarian" arguments—e.g. that charming reference to "forced integration."
From the Los Angeles Times' Opinion L.A. blog, Jan. 16:
Let me get this right.
Bill,
After reading all the posts above, you are quoting CNN and an LA Times blog to indicate that youi STILL believe that Ron Paul is a racist wacko?
And CNN should help us believe that you are right?
Author
See, the thing about racist people is that somehow, someway, they can be caught on camera making a racial slur or derogatory comment. This has never happened to Ron Paul in his entire life.
Furthermore, these newsletters have been around for a long time. Still, Paul kept getting re-elected by the people in his district.
Also, you'd think the mainstream media which hates Congressman Paul so much would use these newsletters daily to completely ruin his campaign. It hasn't happened. Why? Me thinks they found evidence showing he had nothing to do with them.
There HAS to be a reason these newsletters haven't killed his career prior to this election season. Be a good writer and go find out why before posting about your paranoia.
uh ...
Elsewhere in this thread you can find links to mainstream media on this issue. Mainstream media by and large ignored Paul until everyone else dropped out. Now they don't pay much attention to him as his support seems very limited and, dare I say, fringe.
While I doubt you've actually read this far in a non pro Paul response I'm curious if you have any theories on why Paul hasn't addressed this issue head on as it has been in the media on and off for 10 years.
Theories...
Now that your concerns have been addressed by a "Paultard", perhaps you can address a couple of concerns that I have:
One cannot attack opinions and values, as they are personal and wholly owned by the person who holds them. While I find racism despicable, as someone who values the Constitution and freedom of thought and expression, I am forced to defend the rights of anyone to hold those views. The bad thing about being a principled human being is that often one finds oneself in a situation where one has to choose between principles and opinions. In my opinion, racism is a plague on this earth and in this country. I am bound by principle to defend personal choice and freedom, even in the case of someone having a racist outlook. Once someone's racism (or any other "ism", for that matter) affects and belittles another person, that is where the offender's freedoms end.
Paul may not be...
...a racist pile of bull dung, but this episode definitely reveals him as a spineless weasel who doesn't give a shit about racism. At the very best.
Why are we intent on attacking him rather than "educating" him? BECAUSE HE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, YOU FUCKING MORON! He isn't just some guy at local bar, he wants to LEAD THE FUCKING COUNTRY!
HELLO????
Speaking of Morons...
Actually read the words that I typed, and note the idiocy spewing from your keyboard.
I did not say to educate Paul. I said to educate his supporters. If you are going to try to sling names around, be sure that you know what you are talking about, especially when trying to come up with witty replies like you just tried to make.
Stop raging against the machine long enough to actually comprehend what you are going off about...
You said...
"Why do those in the anti-Paul camp insist on attacking him...?" (Emphasis added.) You guys have proved singularly resistant to education.
And you said
Why are we intent on attacking him rather than "educating" him? (emphasis added)
You have proven yourself singularly resistant to reading comprehension.
Your points
You make good points and argue like a thinker not a ranter so I'll (try to) respond in kind.
As to why he doesn't address the issue:
> Perhaps he feels more responsible than his advisers would like him to let on.
Then why would I want him as President? The title is Commander in Chief.
> He may be refusing "direct" addressing of the issue due to being absolutely indignant that such a thing could be believed when his actions are polar opposite to the words written in those newsletters
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Once again, if true, why would I want him as President? We don't need amateurs on the job.
> Perhaps he knows the way that the media (both mainstream and in the blogosphere) like to operate in snippets and sound bytes
He has A LOT of money. If he wanted to address this issue he could spend some and make his point very clear, at least to those of us who pay attention for longer than 25 seconds (a minority perhaps but a vocal and influential one)
> There is always the idea that Paul's detractors are correct and that he is indeed a racist pile of bull dung.
Well I hope not but by dodging the issue he appears to be playing both sides of a very sinister street.
On to your questions:
>Why do those in the anti-Paul camp insist on attacking him rather than educating his supporters in a manner geared toward a superior alternative?
What have you got? I disagree with Paul on a lot - above mentioned issues and others are deal breakers to me - but I'm all for new ideas (See bellow)
> ... use them as a means to destroy his candidacy
He has no candidacy so why bother. There is no traction as of now for him in the Republican Party. He doesn't even seem like a Republican (I mean that as a compliment). Why should McCain waste valuable hot air time?
> Can you propose a realistic alternative to Paul who embodies the positive values
This is kind of a cross post to some other rant on this site. I think any movement has to start from localities. Running for President to fix Everything with Big Ideas means nothing if you have no party (see: Nader). A movement would have to elect Mayors, Governors, dog catchers, State Assembly - all of this in multiples. Big Ideas are great but governing is about fixing the roads, financing the hospitals, paying the fire department, making sure the air and water are acceptably clean. Take over a few states before you run someone for President or else you're just posing.
As this thread is tangled enough I'll refer to your Lincoln post bellow with some thoughts.
I think a big problem with the USA is that the tax money flows to Washington. I'm all for limited socialism (little 'S'(?)) on a municipal level. I believe the government should provide a safety net, but the more local it's administrated and financed the easier it is to tell who's slacking and who really needs help. If I pay some guy to sweep my building because he's out of work and the building isn't swept there's a very short feedback loop.
The devil as usual being in the details but I would like to see a scheme where the tax moneys were paid to cities / localities then to the states then to DC. However, those taxes can't be voluntary, Federal being the law of the land.
I also feel it's the job of the Federal Government to enforce civil rights regardless of the wishes of the locals (and there I probably split with Ron Paul). I don't want racist city cops turning blind eyes to ethnic pogroms. Should the Fed define marriage? Let's burn that bridge when we get to it.
We face big problems as a nation and as a species in the next 100 years and people are going to have to take responsibility for their actions.
Qualifications
> Tangent Warning:I am, however, surprised that no one has latched onto the idea that McCain is technically ineligible to become President, as he is categorized legally as a Naturalized Citizen.
Hilarious. I'd love to see that get a media bubble.
>Big Daddy Bill Clinton was the most deft issue dodger the White House has seen since Herbert Hoover.
What the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this. I thought the right wing witch hunt was unseemly, don't care if he was banging the intern and have other reasons to dislike the Clintons and the DLC. Why does the right (in general, not this post) always bring up Clinton as if banging some intern relates to falsifying intelligence and illegal wiretapping?
> By allowing them to be published in his name, Paul screwed up on a moral level, as he has mentioned, as well as a mental level, lacking the discernment to be able to assess the trustworthiness of the people writing said newsletters.
And on a professional political level by not addressing fully over ten years. Clinton would have appeared weeping with a black man, LBJ would have burned the newsletters, Reagan would have made a speech about states rights. Paul comes off as very small time and or hiding something. If he can't handle some newsletters Putin would have him for a snack.
> Wasn't it great watching Roger Clemens on trial for a steroids while children are dying in the streets.
Who is this Clemens of which you speak? ... Seriously Bush will pardon him and not Bonds.
> Annoyer of Bill Weinberg
He can take it. If you want to go deeper into taxation etc ... it's probably time for a different venue. ww4 does good work on stories that aren't covered widely (see Iraqi Freedom Congress) and one thing there's enough of in 2008 is Ron Paul flame wars.
You guys...
...are the reactionaries. Not me.
OK, let's move on folks. Hey, how about those Tuaregs, eh?
Small man, with a blog...
Okay Bill, I fell for it, (and so did some of my fellow RP supporters) I read your article, I took the bait. I got all worked up, but you know what? I realized people like you can't be saved, not from you own ignorance, because it's like my mother said, 'it's the truly insane people who insist, "I'm not crazy! You are the ones who are crazy!"' You and the rest of the passengers will enjoy their time up to the very last moment aboard the White Star Line's flag ship.
You aren't worth it Bill, really... you are a small speck, of an insignificant crumb. I hesitate even finish this comment, but only for the hope that someone who reads won't have to write and repeat this.
Enjoy your bread and circuses Bill, turn on Fox news, drink your diet colas, and do exactly what you are told. Enjoy!
Wrong number
Haven't watched TV since I was 15, and I've never had a diet coke in my life.
Excuse me, who was just complaining of ad hominem attacks?
What the hell do you people want?
...his head on a pike or something?
The man explained himself over and over again, and it's like talking to the wall with some of you people! I swear, the anti-Paul hysteria is far worse than the pro-Paul hysteria. You've tried to bury him with this story how many times now? And how many times has it failed to resonate? Who exactly is acting like a little child, sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "la la la la" every time Paul gives the only explanation he has - the simple TRUTH, without ratting out a FRIEND? Is it not more noble to take the fire because it was, after all his newsletter? Has he not DONE that, from the beginning? What part of "I take moral responsibility for those awful newsletters" do you not understand? If you think he should find the nearest hari-kari knife and just end it all, IT AIN'T gonna HAPPEN dudes!
RON PAUL FOR THE LONG HAUL, Y'ALL
Yell FIRE! Revolution never come with a warnin'...
If you think...
...saying "I didn't write it" and "I'm not a racist" is at all convincing, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, real cheap.
Wow Bill
I'm going to lay it out right now. You're writings on this particular page make you look like an asshole. It's not just your smear article; it's your comments too. 12 of your 27 comments on your own article belittle those that leave comments (I count suggesting we support Pat Buchanan to be an insult). Most of the remaining comments you left fail to add any information to support your article.
So, back to relevance.
The closest thing I have found Ron Paul say that was even remotely "racist" was his denunciation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, if you actually read this, he is making an excellent point. The state has no business forcing a private business owner to accept people into his or her place of business that they do not wish to be there, regardless of the owner's reason or lack thereof. That's why it is called PRIVATE PROPERTY, not STATE PROPERTY. Additionally, at least he offers a proper solution; the market will solve this. If the previously mentioned store owner finds it is in his best interest to allow customers into his store he previously didn't want there, he will eventually do so, or suffer the consequences. Equality is great, but I wouldn't trade it for the right to manage my own property as I see fit.
A prefect example...
...of a "libertarian" defense of racism. Fortunately, the Supreme Court slapped down that jive.
Proves absolutely nothing
Read the arguments. The owner of the motel owner argued using the 5th and 13th amendments. Arguing congress forced him into "slavery" is a weak argument. As for depriving him of due process (via compensation for his losses as a repercussion of the proposed legislation), this is somewhat interpretable, and an interesting defense, but I can understand the court's position on this, and would agree with them that the repercussions of the law that cause a loss are not something Congress is responsible to recompensate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
Additionally, in your own source, in bold print,
"Supreme Court Affirms Congressional Authority to Regulate Private Businessunder the Commerce Clause
Justice Clark, writing for a unanimous Court, upheld the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution to regulate both interstate and intrastate businesses, public as well as private, that affect thenation's commerce:
'[T]he determinative test of the exercise of power by the Congress under the Commerce Clause is simply whether the activitysought to be regulated is "commerce which concerns more States than one" andhas a real and substantial relation to the national interest.' " (and yes, I left the typos as they were on the document you posted ;) )
However, had his arguments been based on his rights under the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments, he would have been better off, and may have even won (can't say as it's not part of the case). I only mention the 10th amendment because the Georgia Constitution of 1945 states in Article 1, Section 5, paragraph II:
Enumeration of Rights Not Denial of Others. The enumeration of rights herein contained as a part of this Constitution shall not be construed to deny to the people any inherent rights which they may have hitherto enjoyed.
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/con1945a.htm
Control of your own property would seem to be an inherent right to me.
Unfortunately, nothing ever guaranteed the government was going to uphold your rights for you if you didn't know them yourself. The idea of having a constitution is that if laws are ever passed that goes against our nation's principles, we have a document and a process to settle this.
Additionally, SCOTUS has ruled counter to the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1975 since the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States decision as it is anyway in Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 and Gratz v. Bollinger 2003. To quote wikipedia's article on Affirmative action in the United States:
"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that race could be used as a criterion in school admissions and that it would not be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly-tailored policy was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
"The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's point-based undergraduate admissions policy that took race into account numerically was too mechanical and unconstitutional.
An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
Sure, Affirmative action applies to employment and education, but if SCOTUS rules that race can be of no benefit to you for employment or education, why the hell should it be a benefit for you in your shopping selection? I will still stand by my "libertarian jive": DISCRIMINATION IS A NON-ISSUE FOR GOVERNMENT. If a person want to be a small-minded prick to another person or group of people for superficial reasons, it's their god-given right to be. It reveals them for the moron they truly are to the public, and in business, they will be replaced by a non-bigoted, and likely non-racist, competitor. It is not Congress's (and if I had my way, no governing body's) place to legislate people being "nice" to each other.
Just to Point Out...
...You committed an egregious typo, and in your post's title, no less.
Still grasping...
I said I take full responsibility for all of World War 4 Report's editorial content, and I do. I do not take responsibility for the ads which are generated by an impersonal Google algorithm. Google Ads already vets for hateful and racist crap such as appeared in Ron Paul Political Report. When we decided to accept Google ads, we made clear to our readers that it was an unfortunate economic necessity, and that obviously nothing that appeared in the ads should be construed as having our endorsement. (Paul, in contrast, has still not made clear what that crap was doing in his newsletter.) It should also be obvious from our editorial content that we despise John McCain. If you don't think we should sully ourselves by accepting Google Ads, please feel free to make a big, fat contribution. You can use the PayPal link, or send checks payable to World War 4 Report to:
World War 4 Report
121 Fifth Ave. #172
Brooklyn, NY 11217
The Paulistas are mad (in more ways than one)
Bill,
I’m surprised you posted this given how much coverage it has already received at other blogs. As you know, these people are nuts, far out, gone. There is no talking or reasoning with them. I've posted a few items critical of Paul it’s like they sit around all day waiting for this sort of thing. They are convinced that Ron Paul is dedicated to "the Constitution" (judging by their positions I'm not sure which one) and opposed to "corporatists." They’ve raised a lot of money but as far as having any real political support outside of his district, not so much. As I’ve written, he has proven to be a virtual candidate with a lot of support online but without any sizable political constituency to speak of. As another poster noted, 5% is not especially impressive.
Anyway, thought you might be interested in this:
I know we disagree on many things but I think the Paulistas are a perfect example of the loony left and the loony right merging around issues of anti-globalization, protectionism and isolationism.
Yes, exactly!
I posted this because, however much coverage it may have received from what the Paulistas love to call the "MSM," there are still a lot well-meaning but naive anti-war types out there who seem not to have got the word...
We'll have to argue some other time about why you think "centrism" is a positive identification.
Left support?
Hi Bill and Centrist,
First of all, I can't believe I swam through so much garbage to get to this post. But I was hoping to find some reference to the leftist support you're referring to. I just haven't seen it, though I also have certainly not searched for it. It made me wonder if it was due to a simple conflation of anti-war sentiment with left sentiment? But I doubted that, since anti-war sentiment is not and has never been solely a left or progressive position. Could you point me to those leftists you're referring to?
thanks.
You will note...
...that I put "left" in quotes. But the folks at Antiwar.com are clearly enamored of him. So are some of the folks at Counterpunch, as the World Socialist Web Site points out.
the usual suspects
Ok, so it's the usual suspects.
I'd refrain though, from associating antiwar.com with the left. Sure they take the usual approach of talking about being "beyond left and right," but they come out of the libertarian right tradition, and don't really leave it. (Although, with the amount of links to their site one finds on left blogs and websites, it seems leftists are trying to help blur these lines too.)
Counterpunch on the other hand, which also acts to blur these lines, has tons of legitimacy on the US Left, so although they have a history of lending support or credibility to right-wing politics, they certainly should be seen as part of the left, at least in terms of a social movement observation, even if their positions often betray left principles.
Ideology Chart
This chart, designed by my once-and-(maybe)-future friend Mitchell Halberstadt in the San Francisco Bay Area, should clear up some of the confusion about left versus right in this thread. Click on the thumbnail for more...
Chart
I like it. Good Stuff there.
The explanation included gives me pause. I will give you the abortion thing (Paul's greatest flaw, in my opinion, as it is no one's business but one's own what one does with one's body), but, as I argued on a feminist blog earlier this month, the current handling of abortion rights by the Supreme Court--a grand total of 9 people--is one of the pro-choice movement's greatest dangers. If abortion is relegated to the states, then 50 state legislatures, 50 state governors, and 50 state Supreme Courts would have to agree that abortion was wrong in order to overturn women's rights to abortion. With an average of, for the sake of argument, 150 legislators--making a majority 76 per state, and an average of 7 justices on the Supreme Court of each state, that would mean that 7600 people in power would have to agree that abortion should be illegal in order to totally ban abortion rights. With a conservative US Supreme Court, I like the odds of preserving rights at a state level better.
...And the ideas of "that would mean that some would get them and others wouldn't" and "That's not fair!" and the like are invalid, as the ultimate unfairness would be for the rights to be taken away from all women. The injustices done to a single woman are horrid. When done to all women, that's true gender hatred. At least there would be the possibility of having a safe medical environment in which to have such a procedure. As it stands, a simple wave of a pen can whisk all those rights away...as well as the possibility of finding those rights within American borders.
Glad you like the chart, but...
...I don't get your abortion argument. You seem to be confused as to what a Roe overturn would do. It would leave the question to the states—unless it was followed with a federal law banning abortion. And, as I understand his position, leaving it up to the states is exactly what Paul calls for.
Just because an overturn of Roe v. Wade would not necessarily be an immediate and total disaster strikes me as a poor argument for its overturn! Surely the right to an abortion should be protected at the federal level. We can fight it out in the state houses later if we have to. But if Roe is protected, we won't have to. That must be preserved as our first line of defense.
I probably don't have to tell you that abortions are far less available than they were 10 years ago, because across huge swaths of rural America doctors have been intimidated out of performing them. That strikes me as a poor indicator of how we'd do in those statehouse fights, at least in the South, Midwest and Mountain states.
If that's Paul's strategy, count me out. Defend Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade
You do realize that the only thing keeping Roe v. Wade in place is the fact that the US Supreme Court has not heard a definitive abortion case? The appointments that Bush has made have swing the balance of power back to the Conservative side. All it takes now is for the religious right to procure funds and snake a case through the court system before the new (and hopefully more reasonable) President is elected and able to make an appointment of his (or her) own. If that happens, it's bye bye to all bodily rights, and abortion may just be the beginning. Depending on the interpretation of the ruling, then one could lose the right to a living will and medical directives, among other things. The Right to Die folks would be set back decades, and those whose personal beliefs require that they abstain from extraordinary medical care (as foreign to you and me as that may seem) could be forced to undergo such treatment "for their own good".
This issue is about much more than abortion. Centering it on abortion is exactly what the fundie crackheads want us all to do. The same people who use the "slippery slope" argument against non-traditional marriages are the ones who are touting the ending of abortion rights as though there are no further consequences. They center it this was so that they have an easier time attacking the "baby killers". On an emotional level, it is easy to fall into the trap of "SAVE THE BABIES!", but I am thinking of each person, not only women, and our rights of self-determination. At least with things moved to a state level, one can find bastions of bodily freedom interspersed within this country. I don't want to see anyone's personal rights upended, but the idea of a sweep of a pen signing away our rights when legislation was never the intended purpose of the Supreme Court scares the hell out of me.
It is sad that such a positive precedent (Brown v. The Board of Education) had such far-reaching consequences insomuch as it was the first "legislation by judge" case to occur... No 9 people were ever meant to wield that kind of power. Constitutionalist or nor, you must realize that the bleeding of powers from one branch of government to the others has eroded the framework and principles of our country. Roe v. Wade, regardless of the content, is such an example.
Sorry, not getting it
If there is a branch of government that has too much power, it is the executive. Yes, the executive has stacked the Supreme Court with conservatives. So you think that means we should just throw in the towel on Roe? Brown v. Board of Education was a reaction to the street heat applied by the civil rights movement. Our challenge is to similarly impact the social climate today.
I agree...
The executive Branch is overly-powerful. The Judicial is overpowered as well as the Legislative. The difference is that a Presidential Veto (one of the strongest political tools the Executive Branch wields) can be over-ridden. Gods forbid the line-item veto comes into effect.
The Judicial Branch has a history of enacting de facto legislation by their decisions. While I agree with the sentiment and the immediate results of the Brown case, I do not agree with the process by which those methods came about. I am fine that the case resulted in an attempt to desegregate the nation, but the precedent it set as far as judicial powers was a dangerous one.
There have been several watershed moments in Washington, and Brown was one of them. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act and the establishment of so-called "police actions" were among them as well.
If supporting the
If supporting the 'principles of our country' means tacitly supporting segregation and the sexual enslavement of women by passing the whole question off to some abstract structural nonsense, then it is time to seriously reevaluate these 'principles.' If a document that is supposed to be a blueprint for a structure that ensures freedom and justice is used to defend slavery and injustice, then only a fool or a hypocrite would side with the dead dry parchment over the real human principles. Tread carefully- the constitution does not discredit unconstitutional intervention- but the need for such intervention may well discredit the constitution.
The 'constitutionalist' and 'states rights' argument for segregation, anti-abortion legislation and other such bulwarks of rich white male privilege ought to be dismissed as either a demagogic rhetorical tactic used by racists and sexists to hoodwink the public.
Amen!
Who are you, friend? That was beautiful.
Rich white male privilege?
Rich white male privilege?
How about the fact that the Constitution is the basis for our laws and is intended to be the buffer between the government and the populace to prevent an omnipresent government?
I have no issue with the rights of women to be held in complete equality with men, nor the equality of all people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor.
I do not see the Constitution as being a document to limit anyone's rights. I feel that it is a document to guarantee the rights of everyone in this country. Laws and community standards can come and go, be struck down on the whim of a judge, be repealed by simple majorities, or change with the ebb and flow of community standards. The Constitution is more substantial than any of that.
Roe v. Wade, as an example, was a decision that was based on Constitutional limits on the Government. In the majority opinion, the matter was a private family matter and no government had jurisdiction as a matter of privacy. To overturn the precedent, even on a local level, is in violation of the Constitution, as such intimate involvement in a person's life is not explicitly outlined as being permitted, and no state has changed their own constitution to allow them to do so, either. Sure, laws will be passed, but these laws would be immediately and without recourse struck down if a Constitutional amendment were passed. THIS is what should be fought for, not the flimsy paper of the Supreme Court that can be repealed as easily as it can be.
I reiterate--if the Supreme Court hears a case on abortion, the bodily rights of women WILL be struck down, and can lead to a domino effect that usurps the bodily rights of everyone, not just women, in favor of state/federal intervention. THAT is slavery and tyranny at its worst.
The same can be said about homosexuality, ethnicity, and other factors that are included in the liberal agenda. making laws and having court decisions are little more than stopgaps.
Screw "uphold Roe v. Wade" as the end all. it should only be the beginning, and a real, defensible, and Constitutional method of protection of the rights of all people to self-determination in all aspects of life should be the goal. It is a lot harder to repeal a Constitutional Amendment than it is to repeal a law or overturn a court ruling.
That said, I am not a rich person my any stretch of the imagination. I do wish to live my life as I see fit, and should have the right to do so, as all people should. I am not, however, my brother's (or sister's) keeper, and I do not feel it is right that, when I am barely scraping by working 60-90 hours per week that I should be forced to support the countless able-bodied people who are recipients of entitlements and the like. I have no problem helping people who need it on my terms. Forcing people to give up wages to support illegal and unjust wars, willful welfare recipients (those who choose to defraud the system), and other such nonsense is tantamount to slavery. The government does not pay me, I pay it. As such, they should be answerable to me (and everyone in the nation), not the other way around. As it stands now, we have no real control. THAT is what the Constitution is supposed to protect us against, and the continuous denial of its validity is the number one reason that we are in the mess we are in today.
welfare myth
Ah the myth of the welfare queen.
>support the countless able-bodied people who are recipients of entitlements and the like. I have no problem helping people who need it on my terms. Forcing people to give up wages to support illegal and unjust wars, willful welfare recipients (those who choose to defraud the system), and other such nonsense is tantamount to slavery
Your tax dollars go to support corporate welfare in various forms, from munitions to sports stadiums to tax breaks. I understand being annoyed at a very small minority of people that game the welfare system but, compared to money paid from your pocket to the rich, it's a very small amount of change. If you want to deny the elderly subsistence living on the state's dime then we have different values. If you're under the illusion that the state can't manage health care ask any UK citizen.
Also don't debase the concept of slavery. You can quit your job, move, leave the country. Hell, go on welfare and try and cheat the system. I would probably agree you're getting a raw deal, as is anyone bellow about 50k a year in this country, but feeling sorry for yourself and blaming some mythical welfare cheat doesn't get you any respect.
Across the pond ...
I have lots of relatives in London and I've worked a lot all over the UK and Belfast, poltically part of the UK if not geographically. The funny thing is, guys in Belfast who really, really don't like the Brits - and I mean time in jail for all kinds of political nastiness - are relatively happy with national health. As a matter of fact, all of the anti-British health system debates I've engaged in over the years have been with Americans. The actual people living under it will discourse about its weaknesses but generally say its a good system that could of course use improvement. You wait a long time for elective stuff but the basics are all covered and in a catastrophic situation you're covered. There are definitely problems but many Americans I know are on the 'just don't go to the dentist plan'. Whose propaganda is that?
> If you think that the people bucking the system on the non-corporate level make up a small minority,
If you think the amount of money, as opposed to the amount of people, is at all relative then you are deluding yourself. Yes, the system gets gamed. All the welfare cheats in America steal as much money as two K Street offices.
The weird thing about the above two arguments is that they are taken as decided by the self-righteous right.
> I'm quite sure that we can find 33% of government spending that we can do without and still have the money for the programs with merit.
I agree with you there. The wretched excess is amazing. But shock therapy on social programs or schools is sacrificing the future to a theory, and the old right wing canard of taking government out of business has always been a smoke screen for stealing. The old line FDR Dems accumulated lots of money through taxes, stole some of it, and created political machines providing jobs in infrastructure etc ... The Reagan Republicans stole all the money and moved it to where it can't be found, created nothing but debt and claim they have some moral high ground to use the US military to promote imperial business interests. Ike was probably the last Republican not rotten to the core.
> and even *gasp* begin to pay back the money we owe.
That's crazy talk ;->
NB: Founder and former-head of CIA's Bin Laden unit speaks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ZG8ohlZvE
none
After hearing Ron Pauls positions on most things I cannot believe he is a Racist, or hateful of any group. One of the things he speaks out about is collectivism. Sometimes this can be very confusing, like when he has voted against some civil rights legislation. Not because he hates the group the legislation is designed to protect, but because he believes that any such legislation should protect all individuals equally, there should be no need for special protections for certain groups.
However having said that, the conclusion I draw is that the thing he is guilty of is not vetting the newsletters, the fact they went out with this garbage in them for years is worrying, it appears he sold his name naively to anyone who wanted to use it and then never checked out what they were doing with it. I have a number of other issues with Paul that would stop me voting for him (A lot of his positions on economy remind me of Thatcher, and although some could argue that she did boost the economy, it came with a social cost, a culture of greed and selfishness), but if I did agree with him I still think his ineptness as a 'publisher' shows him of insufficient character to hold such a high office.
Ron Paul: still a right-wing wack-job
Now that he's announced he's running for president (again), the media have dug up more racist nuggets from past issues of his newsletter. In typical cowardly manner, he claims "they were secretly written by a mystery ghost writer who's name has never been revealed, without Paul's knowledge"—this after his staff said he had in fact penned them. (NewsOne, May 10) Here's some typically ugly samples:
Charming, eh?
"Ron Paul's 'Racist
"Ron Paul's 'Racist Writings' DEBUNKED"
So you'd rather concentrate on a non-issue than acknowledge that Ron Paul, as president, could realistically save hundreds of thousands of lives by bringing our troops home? That he could shut down the DEA and end a federal war on drugs that has disproportionately affected minorities and heavily contributed to the US having a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country? That he could audit the fed and help control unsustainable government spending, and maybe prevent the collapse of the US dollar (which will have worldwide consequence)? That he can reverse recent usurpation of our civil liberties?
No one else is offering this kind of hope and change. Even if he doesn't become president, by campaigning and participating in debates he's forcing other candidates to discuss real issues instead of the usual partisan nonsense.
I get that you're tired of the Ron Paul fervor. A lot of people are. But there are good, sound reasons for his supporters to be so passionate. If you disagree with Paul's proposals, that's worth discussing. But perpetuating this ignorant slander? Please, be better.
"Debunked"? Not!
So the Paul didn't write that evil crap that appeared in his newsletter for 15 years, but paid some guy named Powell to do it? So what? It appeared under his name and he must take responsibility for it. Anyway, I thought it was Lew Rockwell.