Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

kos

 

 

 

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced?  We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Is it any wonder that neo-Nazis are flocking to his campaign? But Paul is against the war in Iraq and he wants FREEDOM! So that must make his racism okay.

(Follow the link, there's much more.)

·         ::

·          

Tags: 2008, president, Ron Paul (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Top of Form

Permalink | 767 comments

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always)  | Indented Flat (Always)

Bottom of Form

Daily Kos Help

Top of Form

·          re (51+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

JR, taylormattd, ogre, pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, jqb, suswa, Plutonium Page, buckhorn okie, badlands, andreww, Sychotic1, mcfly, MmeVoltaire, edalex, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2, Brooke In Seattle, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, jct, danger durden, debedb, Philpm, virgomusic, novapsyche, ER Doc, creeper, jpfdeuce, AmericanRiverCanyon, beaukitty, Randall Sherman, Fredly, Russ Jarmusch, PhantomFly, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, St Louis Woman, Carib and Ting, jnhobbs, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, A Person, mconvente, spencerh, journalschism, red 83, AnotherObamaGirl, jay w, malibu1964, meatwad420

A) Copy.

B) Paste.

C) Email to any friend or relative that send you something positive about this nutjob.

"Steve Holt finished third in Iowa!" - Steve Holt

by cookiesandmilk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:41:21 AM PST

o     BUT HE OPPOSES THE IRAQ WAR!!111!! (28+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

JR, taylormattd, decembersue, Delaware Dem, pHunbalanced, cookiesandmilk, jqb, suswa, buckhorn okie, MadEye, dmsilev, Chamonix, SeattleLiberal, mcfly, Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2, Treg, who threw da cat, oibme, Philpm, kestrel9000, ER Doc, creeper, PhantomFly, 0wn, ImpeachKingBushII, mconvente, spencerh

Bleah.


According to Mike Huckabee, I'm a porn queen.

by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   re (10+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, suswa, buckhorn okie, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, historys mysteries, Philpm, ER Doc, beaukitty, ImpeachKingBushII

AND he raising jillions of dollars on the Internets!!!!

I wonder how much of a hit he would take if these truths were more on the surface. There are a couple of tech blogs (individuals with their own companies) that have been constantly posting about Ron Paul and his campaign and fundrasing.

I started to ignore them after a couple of Ron Paul posts, since I knew the background, but these two guys, "libertarian" types, and others either are so pissed at everyone that they have not looked into this side of Ron, or they simply choose to ignore it.

"Steve Holt finished third in Iowa!" - Steve Holt

by cookiesandmilk on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:53:18 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I think people are choosing to ignore it (10+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

cookiesandmilk, andreww, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, oibme, ER Doc, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII, NeeshRN, meatwad420

like the guy in the coffee shop the other day who was trying to convince me that Ron Paul's racism is just about not giving back "one $500 donation from the Minutemen".

Riiiiight.

Larry Kissell NC-08 : John Edwards for President

by kismet on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:48 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   How very presidential (0 / 0)

choosing to ignore the inconvenient.

Like the fact that Iraq had no WMD's, could not produce a mushroom cloud without a million mushrooms, and gassed his own people with U.S. provided gas.

Just ignore that the guy you want to be president is a nutjob.
I don't even know which guy I'm talking about anymore.

"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" Me to GWB c/o Herman Melville

by Patriot4peace on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:14:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Or to claim it's ancient history (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, phenry, Shapeshifter, dougymi

Ron Paul acolytes I've heard responding to this sputter on about how it's a character assassination based on out-of-context comments from eons ago.

I know, I know, he thought they were cool enough sentiments to put in his own newsletter back then (hard to take that as out of context), and I'd hardly say that 15 years ago is ancient history, but it's what they say, I'm tellin' you.

I think it cuts to the broader talking point--how could someone who's so cuddly and liber-progressive-in-Republican-clothes (which is what my Libertarian friends have elevated this guy to be and want him to be, desperately) ultimately have appealed for so long to the right wing in such a reactionary district?  He had to speak to the same ultimate ideology as Tom DeLay, and this is just one example of how he did it.

by waytac on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:48:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Damned revisionists... (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Shapeshifter, IL dac, Coherent Viewpoint, Empower Ink, Mas Gaviota

15 years ago is ancient history... if you're 25! The Paulbot leader is 72; I think he's old enough to be tried as an adult.

by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:16:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   At 72, Paul May Well Be Into his 2d Childhood nt (0 / 0)

by Empower Ink on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:37:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   THIS IS WHY I QUIT BEING A PARTISAN!!! (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, Eustace Tilley, tjw, livy

As a long time reader, I used to be a huge fan of DKos until they couldn't figure out who our enemies were (neocons) from our allies, anti-war Repugs like Ron Paul.

RP speaks the truth and the newsletter was written by a staffer W/O HIS approval. The comments have long been discredited as speaking for Paul.

Apparently it takes time for news to reach Kos in his witch hunt against RP. Who knew Kos and the right wing hate site like Little Green Footballs have something in common, hatred of Paul.

Dems won't find a better ally in the Repug party than Paul. He is the only one that can split and destroy the party from within. Wake up people!

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:04:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Please... (0 / 0)

Back up your assertions with facts.

I mean, even if they're true i'm not voting for him. Why? I've got my reasons. Reams of them, if you must know.

But don't come in here making some stupid claim and not even linking to a poorly worded denial, then claim we're somehow lacking vision.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:21:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Hi ShapeShifter (0 / 0)

You answer your own question.

First you ask me to back up my argument on behalf of Paul with "facts," then you quickly add even if true I'm not supporting it?

Then what's the point of listing the argument only to have you already made up your mind and not listen.

The argument's kind of circular, ain't it?

Take care and my argument is simple:

I like to see more love from Markos to Paul, don't become the very high priest of partisanship that we hate to see in others aka Rush Limbaugh and Bill-O.

thanks

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:29:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Huh? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Shapeshifter

We've got Paul's own newsletter versus an anonymous commenter's word on it. And since one single reader of your comment isn't going to change his/her mind based on this issue, you're not going to back up your claim? Good luck with that approach.

Deranged neoconservative militarism isn't the solution to nuclear proliferation; it's a cause. -- Glenn Greenwald

by factbased on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:35:11 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   PAUL'S OWN NEWSLETTER ARGUMENT DEBUNKED!!! (3+ / 1-)

Recommended by:

Quequeg, livy, TruthStandsOut

Trollrated by:

BlueGenes

Alright this "anonymous" writer will now state some facts so you boys can smell some fresh air instead of the same stale recycled lies of partisanship and reflexive demagoguery. (Something you seem to emulate well from your vicious neoconned opponents.)

You wanted facts well here it is. And when you still don't believe me, I don't want to have to write another post saying I told you so...

Here's my 2cents:

Along with the 1992 campaign newsletter, the same writer later accused Houston female lawmaker as "fraud" and "half-educated victimologist."

From Wikipedia (SOURCED in the end with relevant links):

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[57] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[32] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations

"quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[9]

So as you can READ:

1.     Ron Paul disavowed the newsletter article as not being his words

2.     The staffer responsible was immediately fired.

3.     Some old style journalistic research by the NY Times showed the newsletter didn't match Paul's writing style.

In addition, NY Times is the very publication that tried to smear Paul's good name to allegations of the kind that's popular on the hate site LittleGreenFootballs, about Paul meeting with racists, is a closet wingnut racist.

That story was retracted and immediately corrected today:

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." This old truism seems to be playing out in the case of the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for president.

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Debunked? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, kpominville

Do you know what debunked means?  9 years after the statement was made, and 5 years after he publicly defended the statement, he came out and blamed it on staffer?  That is a lame, pathetic explantion, that might win over some of his simpleton supporters, but it certainly isn't a debunking.

Meanwhile, Paul is welcoming the support of David Duke and Stormfront leader (and former Klan grand wizard) Don Black.  

Gandhi would fucking slap you for associating him with a dirtbag like Ron Paul.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:52:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   YES LEARN TO READ D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D (1+ / 1-)

Recommended by:

Quequeg

Trollrated by:

BlueGenes

>>Do you know what debunked means?  9 years after the statement was made, and 5 years after he publicly defended the statement, he came out and blamed it on staffer?  

9 years later since it only became a a campaign issue by his opponent. When asked about it, he openly said those weren't his statements.

Maybe you need to re-read the analysis of those not being his words.

Do you liked to be blamed for a redneck leaving a post on your behalf? Much like Markos gets blamed by Bill-O for some horrendous comments left by some on his site under his name?

>>Gandhi would fucking slap you for associating him with a dirtbag like Ron Paul.  

As an Indian, I'm offended by crass vulgar projection of violence on Gandhi. It truly shows how desperately you truly fear liberals turning to the Paul movement.

And still notice we don't stoop to your vulgar level of dehumanization.

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:28:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You may not (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, BlueGenes

use vulgarities, but you support a racist and are working with fellow supporters from Stormfront and David Duke.

I'll take being vulgar, thanks.

As an Indian, you should really ask yourself why you are ignoring this side of your candidate and making excuses for him. Odd that.

How is bringing up someone's past "dehumanizing."

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:46:21 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Denied not Debunked (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, SeattleLiberal, BlueGenes

If it were "debunked" that would mean that the statements were untrue.

But it is true, the statements were made in the Ron Paul politcial report.

All Paul has done is deny that he agreed with the statements and that wasn't until years later.

The fact he did not do so immediately says a lot.

Also, you seem to think you can "join" with Ron Paul to "split and destroy the Republican party". I think that is foolish and will backfire on you. Ron Paul is a Republican and joining with him is joining with the Republicans and in the end it will only make them stronger.

by kpominville on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:24:34 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   DEBUNKED, kindly reread above post... (0 / 0)

They were not Ron Paul's words.

by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:44:18 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You are a PaulTroll (0 / 0)

and I'm TRing you on site.

This site is for electing democrats.

I am done playing nice with Paulbots.

This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:30:45 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hey user #142682... (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, SeattleLiberal, alizard, BlueGenes

If the racist bullshit is sourced back to at least 1992, and the staffer Paul is scapegoating wasn't fired until 1996, AND Paul was willing to let a racist fuckwit write a newsletter under his name, then:

§  The "staffer responsible" wasn't "immediately fired"

§  Paul has terrible judgment when it comes to delegating (or he's a liar and you're a gullible toady)

3.     You're arguing that a guy who was cool with racism being published under his name until he got called on it four years later should be President because of his, what, moral leadership?

Finally, if you think that the "natural allies" of the Democratic Party are to be found in the John Birch Society wing of the Republican Party, then you're an idiot in addition to being a Ron Paul troll.

Begone, we're done with you.
Photobucket

The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:44:04 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Pimp Ron Paul Elsewhere (0 / 0)

This is a site for electing Democrats.

Kossacks with spare donuts, please consider feeding your local Ron Paul troll today. It is a much better use than a dem candidate diary ratings war.

This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Here's the thing: (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, factbased

You made a claim.

Unless you support that claim i have no qualms calling that claim bullshit.

However, do not think that is the only thing preventing me from voting for RP--there are many reasons, as i alluded to.

There's nothing circular or prejudicial about it. This is the first of many steps that RP supporters would have to go through to secure my vote, but they aren't taking any steps at all.

Your argument here is not an argument at all. It borders on concern trolling. Sometimes partisanship is right.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:11:01 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   WHY I AM NOT A PARTISAN DEM AND WHY RP IS HOPE... (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TruthStandsOut

>>sometimes partisanship is right.

Sometimes anything is right. Even a clock w/o batteries is right twice a day.

>>Your argument here is not an argument at all.
Please see above my post above with the title, Paul's own newsletter debunked.

>>It borders on concern trolling.

Oh God is there any other word in people partisan dictionary than trolling. I think its the most overrated word and is soon becoming my pet peeve.

Partisanship is bad when it makes you blind to the truth or when it prevents you from seeing things objectively.

That is why I THANK God as an American Muslim who has seen fellow Muslims suffer the world over that Ron Paul is not the PERFECT CHOICE, but the best one of the field. I disagree with him on immigration, taxes, and Civil War analysis, but hey I appreciate his refreshing views OR ANYTHING that's different than the credibility FauxNews and other MSM lavishes on Neocons like Gaffney, J.Bolton, Steyn, Bill Kristol, etc. etc.

He's the only true hopeful that will end foreign entanglements, political allegiance to Israel, and  wars at all costs which in my humble opinion is the greatest challenge facing America today. Fix foreign policy then you may have a chance of fixing the economy, repair our superpower status, and regain our status as a moral country not hellbent on building EMPIRE AS Edwards, Obama, and HILLARY all refused to "rule out" (will be in Iraq till 2013!).

Best to you!

And I really hope as a partisan Dem myself let down by the spineless Pelosi and Reid and incensed by the neocons, helping and supporting the man of principle like Ron Paul will destroy the neocon-hijacked Republican party from within. They declared war on Islamofascists (ie Muslims) and the best Muslims could do is help see it divided and destroyed not only for our survival (Iran next?) but for the future of America and its economic prosperity which is in great danger....

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:50:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hey (0 / 0)

This is a partisan Democratic site.  As I keep saying, I suggest going to DavidDuke.com or Stormfront, where you will get a much warmer reception than you are getting here.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:25 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hey right back! (0 / 0)

I don't need your affection or reception to tell you the stinging truth.

I may even get banned from the site for not parroting the blind partisan neo-liberal commentary, but guess what?

Self-rigteous nerds parroting their blind views in an echo chambers don't win elections.

Alliance building and holding your party will have a big tent will.

Besides if I register with Duke'ems who will be here to give you hell? Remember great thoughts only arise when views are vigorously debated that challenges your traditional world views.

Not that you're interested in that Doldums.

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:29 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Funny stuff (0 / 0)

Well the Paultards here sure aren't generating much in the way of great thoughts.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:38 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Funny? Still laughing it off like Hillary I see? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TruthStandsOut

Seem to be generating much more than the ad hominem attacks you seem to spewing. "Paultards?" "aPAULling" "Paulistinians?"

Don't you seem it ironic that pro-Paul people are hated by both the neocons and neolibs, esp. considering many like me used to be great admirers of Markos and his blog...

A wise one once said quote:

"Stand up for justice, even if it maybe against own yourself."

And I think nothing sums up breaking the mental tribal bondage better than that.

http://www.youtube.com/...

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:16:56 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   . (0 / 0)

Photobucket

The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:46:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hah! Oh you want to start this, huh? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Coherent Viewpoint

Sometimes anything is right. Even a clock w/o batteries is right twice a day.

Which is funny, because that's exactly how i would describe Ron Paul.

Go ahead, tell me again how Democrats should play nice with the Republican murder machine.

I dare you.

Because the alternative... well, that's called "partisanship".

Oh God is there any other word in people partisan dictionary than trolling. I think its the most overrated word and is soon becoming my pet peeve.

Maybe you don't realize, but...

Well...

Should i use "flamebait" instead?

Partisanship is bad when it makes you blind to the truth or when it prevents you from seeing things objectively.

Please show that this is happening here.

That is why I THANK God as an American Muslim who has seen fellow Muslims suffer the world over that Ron Paul is not the PERFECT CHOICE, but the best one of the field.

Better than... i don't know, Chris Dodd?

Fix foreign policy then you may have a chance of fixing the economy...

I don't really see how our economic woes are the result of our foreign police. They are a result of mismanagement, intentional and otherwise. Ron Paul wouldn't fix that: he has explicitly stated he doesn't believe in government management of the economy at all.

So that's not really a solution, is it?

...Edwards, Obama, and HILLARY all refused to "rule out" (will be in Iraq till 2013!).

There are more than three Democrats running, or did you forget? If you've dedicated your attention to a longshot candidate (nothing wrong with that, necessarily) then what's wrong with (ie) Dodd? Dodd's proposal: Withdrawals begin immediately, ending in 8-10 months after he takes office. Just FYI.

And I really hope as a partisan Dem myself let down by the spineless Pelosi and Reid...

We can do something about that. (I don't see why we aren't, to be honest.) Dodd (not to sound like a Dodd partisan here) almost won the leadership position vs. Reid the last time, if i remember correctly.

Ron Paul will destroy the neocon-hijacked Republican party from within...

Ron Paul is not exactly that much of a radical. He's really a fairly typical--if extreme--Republican. In the same mold as people like Tancredo or Pat Buchanan. Not the same on all specific ideas (though pretty close) but the same type of Republican. He won't destroy them, he'll just replace them at the top. Which is, of course, why he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting through the primary. They will destroy him.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:03:17 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     kos doesn't tell us who to vote for (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

the way Rushbo tells his fans who to vote for.

there's no comparison.

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:43:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Are you really this stupid? (0 / 0)

First you ask me to back up my argument on behalf of Paul with "facts," then you quickly add even if true I'm not supporting it?

Then what's the point of listing the argument only to have you already made up your mind and not listen.

The argument's kind of circular, ain't it?

Even if RP isn't a racist, Shapeshifter isn't voting for him for reams of other reasons. That isn't circular, moron.

Never mind, if you're planning on voting for anti-science anti-separation-of-church-and-state Ron Paul, you must be very stupid indeed.

by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:41:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Name calling, the last resort of a scoundrel (0 / 0)

As a Democratic Paulite, why am I not surprised?

by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:32:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "name calling" can be accurate (0 / 0)

And it's not my last resort; with people as stupid as you, I'm pretty up front with it.

by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:17:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          wikipedia (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

rednova

Back up your assertions with facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Yes, as the URL implies, this was a 1996 controversy.

dKos has had two duplicate front page stories on it lately pretending like it's breaking news.

by tjw on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:21:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Interesting... (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Coherent Viewpoint, Mia Dolan

I had never heard he repudiated those views even slightly.

Even so, how precisely can he reasonably suggest he was not responsible for the content of his own newsletter? Pinning the blame on a ghostwriter is all well and good, except that the ghostwriter(s) wrote a whole hell of a lot and he also kept publishing them. Saying "a ghostwriter did it" does not absolve you!

Also, who was the ghostwriter and where did RP come up with said ghostwriter? Like, when i hire someone to write political commentary for me i don't expect them to write that kind of thing. In fact, i kind of expect that they don't.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:10 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You ever heard of a hiring wrong ppl? (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

tjw, livy, TruthStandsOut

I believe RP hired a guy named Eric Dondero and after they fired him he became disgruntled and went on a crusade to "expose him."

Every now and then he resurfaces and leaves scathing rebukes on various websites and Timmy Russert even quoted him last Sunday on MTP in a feeble attempt at being "tough interviewer."

So next time you see ERIC DONDERO... hide your children.

by rednova on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Sure, you can make a mistake in hiring... (0 / 0)

But... uh...

I mean, RP still had control here. This was still his newsletter and he was still publishing it.

If RP didn't agree with what he was writing then why did he continue--for quite some time, as i understand it--to fund the whole thing?

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:50:31 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Paul Troll On Site (0 / 0)

This TR has nothing to do with this specific comment and everything to do with the fact that youve come to this site with the sole intent to pimp Ron Paul.

Anyone want to unrate, please check out The Purpose of This Website.

This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:36:27 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Quit being a troll. (0 / 0)

Ron Paul is a "pro-life" anti-evolution pro-greed nutjob. Unless he hasn't told the truth about his views.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:53:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          ACCUSING PPL OF BEING TROLLS IS THE BEST YOU GOT? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

Anyone who doesn't toe your line of reasoning is a "troll?" I see...kinda of like the racist anti-Arab blogs like LFG, HotAir, Powerline, RedState, et. al. who don't toe their line?

This is EXACTLY why I never bothered registering as a Democrat (first they don't got the balls to oppose anything AS AN OPPOSITION PARTY) then they try to smear a good man who actually takes on his own right-wing, neocon hijacked party.

As a former Dem in the great state of NJ, I'll be voting for the good Doctor, not because I agree with 100% of what he says, BUT B/C he stands up for what he believes in (Obama), doesn't lie (Hillary), or pander to the most vile of pro-Israeli party like (Edwards, Biden, Dodd and ALL Repugs).

Only Kucinich would merit my respect more than Paul, but he's also character assassinated by our good pal Kos as a "nut" who sees UFOs.

I rather have a nut who ends wars and is not beholden to Israel-first groups then repeat wars as Hillary would against Iran, Syria, Lebanon...

and we progressives wonder why Dem don't have the backbone. WELL STOP SUPPORTING THEM!!!

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:24:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     BWAHAHAHA! (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

we progressives

I'll be voting for the good Doctor

Photobucket

The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:48:41 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Blanket attacks on Dkos are trolling, by defintn (0 / 0)

"I used to be a huge fan of DKos until they couldn't figure out who our enemies were"

Who is "they", dipshit?

by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:37:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   VULGARITY AT ITS FINEST! (0 / 0)

Funny you ask who "they" are while it is I who you accuse of being a "dipsh!t?"

When will people learn???

by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:42:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   My lord you are dumb. (0 / 0)

DKos is a blog, not a "they", and a blog isn't the sort of thing that can figure things out. And what sort of baby are you, that you can't spell out "dipshit"? Adults use vulgarity as a matter of course; only children giggle and point fingers when they here it, fuckhead.

by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   LOL (0 / 0)

Ron Paul is far and away the biggest liar in congress.  And if you are really stupid enough to believe that Paul's decade later excuse for his racist newsletter absolves him, I am surprised you can dress yourself, much less use a computer.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:39:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          That's right RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

Wow. You must feel good now in your self-deprecating attacks against Paul and for your ad hominem low blows:  "I'm surprised you can dress yourself much less use a computer?"

I can say, "and people stupid enough to be like you shouldn't be allowed to vote" , but we realize that you need lies to cling on to your partisan ways.

I no less don't need clining.

I'm a progressive and proud of it, and one who WILL BE VOTING FOR DR. RON PAUL IN MY NJ PRIMARIES as someone who best represents my views and stands up for the Constitution, you know the document you swear your life and allegiance to uphold and protect!

I don't apologize to you or your self-righteous ilk.

Best to you and your kind. You do what you have to do to get HIllary elected and I'll do what I can for my candidate.

Respectfully yours,
Rednova

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:04:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     LOL (0 / 0)

Ron Paul doesn't support the constitution.  He supports a fucked up interpretation that doesn't remotely resemble the constitution.

Anyway, David Duke and company thank you for your support of their candidate.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:08:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   AH THE GREAT SMEAR OF LINK BY ASSOCIATION. (0 / 0)

I don't need David Duke to thank me.

I think Bill-O tried to pull that one against the DKos, smear by association. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

Besides these are serious issues and you laughing too often and out loud as replies to my posts seem creepily like Hillary.

You're beginning to freak me out.

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:55 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Nope (0 / 0)

the link by association is a smear if it only goes one way.  Paul welcomes the support of David Duke and the nazis at Stormfront.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:04:42 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yup (0+ / 1-)

Trollrated by:

BlueGenes

You repeat yourself as often if not more than a parrot wanting a cracker.

That still doesn't make your smears and lie against an honest man any truthful.

Nice try, keep trying.

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:23 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Since you're out of your gourd... (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Coherent Viewpoint, Mia Dolan

STUFFED ACORN SQUASH

4 acorn squash
1 cup cooked wild rice
2 egg whites
1/2 cup chopped celery
1/2 cup chopped red onion
1/2 cup chopped carrot
1 tsp red wine vinegar
4 oz toasted pine nuts
salt and pepper

Preheat oven to 400 degrees.  Cut tops off the squash and remove innards.  In a large skillet, sweat celery, onion and carrot until soft.  Add egg whites and stir until scrambled.  Add vinegar and cook until evaporated.  Add rice and pine nuts and stir to combine.  Salt and pepper to taste.

Loosely stuff the acorn squash until just brimming, then replace the tops.  Place on baking sheet and put on center rack for around 1 hour, until the sides give easily to pressure.  Enjoy with chilled pinot grigio or moscato (and, for the Ron Paul supporters out there, put the glue bottle away while consuming, as the scent could easily confuse your palate).

The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:55:25 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   LOL, THE GOOD OLD RECIPE TRICK??? (0 / 0)

Crass, robotic, and takes no intellect.

Quite the reflection of an intellectually hollow opponent who is blinded by meager partisanship.

by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:36:33 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If you love Ron Paul so much.. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

why dont you marry him?

Oh that's right, RP doesnt want LGBTs to marry.

This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

by BlueGenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   R U SERIOUS? (0 / 0)

Boy and I thought LGF wackos were nutty?

by rednova on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:37:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   No, he wasn't serious, moron. (0 / 0)

Can people really get that stupid?

by jqb on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:23:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Interesting point of view (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

rednova

The neocons could be stifling RP along with pumping up Obama (see L C Johnson diary in the Rec list tonight.)

On the other hand, if RP does think and speak that way at least he's upfront about it.  You can't say that about about any other Rep except McCain (the upfront-ness that is, not the racist shit).

"He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

by RUKind on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "Gullible" isn't in the dictionary, either (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

Photobucket

The American people are competent. Why shouldn't the government be competent? The people tell the truth. Why should our government lie? -Jimmy Carter

by JR on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:38:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Even if I buy that 'it isn't his words' bit... (0 / 0)

...you have to admit, that's a pretty king-sized liability.  Hell, people wrung their hands over Bill Clinton smoking pot 30 years previously, for chrissakes (even if he didn't, you know, inh....well, anyways).  And having to take the 'it's not his words' argument requires a credulity-straining leap of faith close to the 'OJ didn't do it and is out looking for the real killers' extreme.

And fyi I did take as objective a look as I could at RP (to understand him, or try)--some of the partisans I mention are very very close friends of mine and will remain as much, gold standard advocacy notwithstanding :).  

So, ah....watch what you're calling assassin there, eh buddy?

And in that spirit, my biggest issue with Paul isn't flyers from the 90's that rather disturbingly piqued the fascination of the Stormwatch bunch--I understand the technical argument that in and of itself, RP can't control that.  My biggest issue is his voting record.  It simply stenches of hardcore Christian-right dreck, and reflects nothing of what I admire about Libertarians (and there are a few things).

I don't know a true libertarian who would vote for DOMA.  RP was passionate about it. How does that compute?  There's tons more examples.

See, the problem is the flyers-n-newsletters issue aligns with his voting record to create an indelible print which seems parsecs from being Naderesque (or even Perotique!), and not Libertarian in any way I want to respect the word.

If you're actually not a RP-bot but just a Paul supporter, I wouldn't mind a thoughtful discourse with you on these issues.

by waytac on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   No--most don't know it (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss, Coherent Viewpoint, zeytoun

I read the leftist blogs almost daily and this is the first time I've seen this quote. Thanks for the source, and completeness of it. I've been one of those impressed by what he says on the war in the debates and when interviewed--I've never heard him say anything on race.  So call me newly informed, but don't assume I and others like me are willing to overlook shit like this.  I'll happily call him a racist nutjob and be glad he has no chance in the elections, but I'LL STILL SAY I WISH THE DEMS WOULD SPEAK LIKE HIM ABOUT THE WAR AND MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX--because he's clearly a creep in many areas who happens to also be right on some. I'm glad he has the podium to actually voice the truths most Dems don't speak for fear of sounding paranoid (ie, that the gov't is in bed with the medical and communications industries as well as the military contractors).

So I can STILL be glad some one is voicing these ideas. Keep speaking, Ron, and I'll keep being glad you speak on this stuff AND that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell to be elected. And whenever I praise your foreign policy remarks, from now on I'll be sure to insert "though a completely racist nutjob" first.

by MmeVoltaire on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:31:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Somebody post this at Digg (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Shapeshifter

That site is full of RP supporters.

by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I've been banned 7 times from digg (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate

for posting anti-Ron Paul material.

I posted this exact link that Kos has 7 weeks ago, and was banned.

then created a new account and submitted the remaining parts of  this and was banned.

by iliketodrum on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:55:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   RE: I've been banned 7 times from digg.. (0 / 0)

Of course you'd be.

Posting false accusatory and libelous accusations against Paul is just not right.

We wouldn't tolerate smears if it was done against Obama attending a madrassa, then why would you accept smears against a good man who has NOT ONE IOTA of racist bone in his body?

The NYTimes also dug similar dirt against Paul like Kos but quickly recanted and retracted the story for its inaccuracies.

Here's the link:

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/...

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:33:54 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Reddit, also. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Progressive Moderate, Coherent Viewpoint

Shame that a good two thirds of them seem to be too young to remember a government other than Bush. It's hard to argue government isn't inherently flawed when the only point of reference the people you're arguing with have never witnessed non-flawed government.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:23:16 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I guess Norquist's dream is coming true (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Shapeshifter, livy

By cutting funding for agencies like FEMA, and by creating a police state, Bush is creating more libertarians, especially for a site like Digg.

by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:44:24 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Or... (0 / 0)

They're secretly on board, but can't admit that in "public" (public being the computer nerd public, which is generally pretty tolerant.)

On certain tech-oriented websites i have had to get into arguments about whether or not RP has the right idea regarding race. Considering 90% of the RP fans have no idea about his views on race that gets pretty ugly...

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:18:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I think that would be strike one (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

ER Doc, beaukitty, Randall Sherman, leonard145b

to a lot of the folks claiming to support him.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:56:28 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Strike one HELL!! (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

milton333, jct, Philpm, novapsyche, ER Doc, creeper, leonard145b

Tossed out of the friggin game

Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic.

by beaukitty on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:01:13 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Unfortunately (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

andreww, Shapeshifter, vcmvo2, oibme, Philpm, Patriot4peace, beaukitty

This would be a point in Paul's favor with my brother-in-law, unfortunately.

I love my husband, but I'm so-o-o-o-o glad the holidays are over and I don't have to listen to his relatives for a while...

by Nina Katarina on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:37:17 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   So Paul is an overt racist... (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, Shapeshifter, historys mysteries, Coherent Viewpoint, HenryVane

...as opposed to the covert rescists he is running against for the GOP nomination.

by Randall Sherman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:22:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hey, there's a great slogan! (10+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, Progressive Moderate, historys mysteries, Coherent Viewpoint, Stripe, Randall Sherman, leonard145b, spencerh, HenryVane, gloryoski

"Vote for [REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE HERE] -- at least his racism is covert!"

by Finck II on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:30:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   And he opposed the Civil War.......! (10+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, TrueBlueMajority, jqb, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, historys mysteries, jfadden, majcmb1, leonard145b, Mas Gaviota

And showed an appalling lack of knowledge about history when he yammers on about Yankees just buying the slaves. Gosh, why didn't anyone think of it at the time? So simple. Just like him and his herd.

it tastes like burning...

by eastvan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:29:07 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   And he REALLY hated the results! (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, Shapeshifter, historys mysteries, jfadden, eastvan, leonard145b

by Finck II on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:30:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Ron Paul's Slavery Plan (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

badgerminor, AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, Shapeshifter, Coherent Viewpoint

§  Ron Paul: "Hello, Mr Slaveholder, I am President Ron Paul and I would like to buy your slaves and set them free."

§  Beauregard T. Slaveholder: "Well, that's mighty white of you Mr. Paul.  Mah price is $10,000,000 per head.  Cash only."

3.     ???

4.     Profit!!!

by jfadden on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:12:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   actually the British paid their (0 / 0)

slaveowners to stop being a nuissance in 1833, 29 years before the War Between the States began in 1865.  I'm all for colorfully denigrating mendacious and ignorant politicians, but facts are facts.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:15:32 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     THANK YOU, KOS!!!! (33+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

akr nyc, taylormattd, DelRPCV, pHunbalanced, cookiesandmilk, jqb, buckhorn okie, badlands, Sacramento Dem, andreww, modemocrat, mcfly, nasarius, vcmvo2, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, Treg, oibme, Philpm, Clytemnestra, ER Doc, DemocraticLuntz, creeper, AmericanRiverCanyon, beaukitty, Fredly, Russ Jarmusch, Carib and Ting, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII, HenryVane, Tennessee Dave, malibu1964

I have been posting that information in comments for weeks now! I can't believe how many people in this community are ready to embrace this guy because of his anti-war stance and because Dennis Kucinich likes him. People just seem to shrug off this guy's blatant, horrific intolerance.

Kucinich is out of his mind for even entertaining the notion of this a**hole as a potential running mate!

People: Ron Paul is a straight up racist. I make no distinction between him and those who support him.

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:50:34 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yeah, but... (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Shapeshifter, Philpm, ER Doc, leonard145b, journalschism

to per the dodge he used in his appearance on Meet the Press, racism isn't in his platform. So it doesn't count, see?

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:59:13 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Speaking of MTP (18+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, DelRPCV, jqb, Geotpf, Hprof, modemocrat, nasarius, randallt, Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, ivorybill, beetsnotbeats, bruised toes, novapsyche, ER Doc, AmericanRiverCanyon, leonard145b

The guy actually espouses that idea that the U.S. government should have purchased the slaves during the Civil War, then set them free.

Paul/Duke '08!

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:09:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yeah, a real maverick, (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

dionys1, leonard145b, journalschism

and you knoooows how we looooves our mavericks.

Another curious thing about that MTP performance: he said that, yes, he does believe that the US government is now "soft" facist. The media response? At least as far as I've been able to discern:  crickets. Rawstory and some blogs picked it up, but none of the major corporate media. Can you imagine the same non-response if any of the Democratic contenders were to say the same thing?

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:10 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I don't know what the response would be... (0 / 0)

If a democrat had made such a claim. It's entirely possible it would be as you say.

Was he wrong to make the claim, do you wish he hadn't said it?

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:33:38 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   No, I agree with the remark. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint, leonard145b

Not sure about the "soft" part, in light of dead habeas corpus, the surveillance state, torture, and "renditions" (aka: disappearances, kidnappings), but there can be little doubt that big capital and big government are tightly interlocked. So, no, he was not wrong to make the claim. My comment came out of my observation of the apparent non-response by the BM (big media).

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:28:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Soft is probably a good description. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Shapeshifter, Coherent Viewpoint

We don't exactly have the gestapo here yet, or the death camps.

My comment came out of my observation of the apparent non-response by the BM (big media).

There is another interpretation, feel free to think it less plausible.

The media was afraid that if repeated or had attention been drawn to it, that it'd be so obvious to everyone listening that no denial would be possible.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:45:00 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "Soft" works. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint

Or just "fascism" or, more transparently descriptive, "corporatism."

Another reason for the apparent lack of interest could just be the holiday slows.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:28:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   well, (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Geotpf, wilderness voice, ElJames, Marcion, NoMoreNicksLeft, chrismatthews, DrillSgtK

compensated emancipation was done, successfully and without bloodshed, in many other places.

Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

by jimsaco on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:10:46 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Ugh (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, leonard145b, Tennessee Dave

Please. Defend a racist someplace else.

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:16:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   which defeats his point how? (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jimsaco, AaronInSanDiego, Eustace Tilley, NoMoreNicksLeft, DrillSgtK

Are you saying that compensated emancipation didn't/doesn't work?

The true measure of a mans character lies not in how he treats his friends, but in how he treats his enemies.

by FunkyEntropy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM PST

[ Parent ]

��   You don't get it, do you? (12+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, jqb, phenry, Shapeshifter, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, majcmb1, creeper, leonard145b, journalschism, Tennessee Dave

So, are you okay with new owners of human chattel doing as they please with their purchases, up to and including emancipation, as long as previous owners are financially compensated? How did those previous owners come to own humans? Do you think it was okay to own humans because it was legal at the time?

by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:51 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Thanks, beets (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, phenry, vcmvo2, leonard145b, Tennessee Dave

I don't have the energy or patience to argue with these Paul defenders anymore.

Finding a silver lining in slave owning. Is this  really happening on DKos????

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:32 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I wondered when the Paulbots would show up here (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

journalschism

they are certainly all over C-Span and all the talk shows.

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Uh. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

winstnsmth, wilderness voice

Suppose that for whatver reason, you are a slaveowner in 1830 Georgia.

What is the only possible morally correct path at that point? Mind you, you've been immoral up to this point, but suddenly through some epiphany or maybe a more considered enlightenment, you see the error of your ways.

Does freeing your slave(s) somehow fall into exercising slavery over them again, making it some sort of inescapable immorality trap?

Now, take it a step further. Someone you know is the slaveowner, not you. You want to convince them to free their slave. There are 3 tools at your disposal, reasoning with them, bribing them, or killing them. In which order would you choose to do those things?

A) Reason, kill them, no bribery
B) Kill them
C) Reason, bribery, kill them
D) Kill them, and then kill them again

Historically, we chose A. If we could do it all over again, I'd try C. Most people here seem to want to choose D, though.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   typical libertarian understanding of history and (0 / 0)

human behavior.  I notice that the 14th amendment isn't among your options.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:59:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   it is a matter of historical FACT, (6+ / 4-)

Recommended by:

Samulayo, Philpm, ElJames, Scottsdale Jack, livy, chrismatthews

Trollrated by:

PaintyKat, vcmvo2, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII

that compensated emancipation worked successfully and without bloodshed in many other places.

You can plug your ears and go lalala if you want, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.

I'm saying it was the least bad option.  600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way.

But look -- here we are arguing about the War of Northern Aggression.  When we've dumped a trillion dollars into the sands of the Middle East, with no end in sight.  With $9 trillion in debt.  45 million without health insurance.

What are the real priorities?

Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

by jimsaco on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:50:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Doing it Lincoln's way? (16+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, jxg, jqb, PaintyKat, Shapeshifter, jfadden, IL dac, majcmb1, Coherent Viewpoint, KenBee, novapsyche, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII, Mas Gaviota, gloryoski

And the War of Northern Aggression?!? You're one of those who still "hears the guns" and has romanticized it, aren't you?

It was a civil war and it was started when South Carolina decided secession was a great way to preserve the South's "peculiar institution" otherwise known as slavery! Phrase it any way you want and it's still just BS. Yeah let's blame Lincoln for the very few priveleged landholders in the South who wanted to continue to deny the humanity of African-Americans.

You people make me sick!

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:26:23 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   inappropriate trollrating (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

while I agree with you on this point, namely, that it was the South that started armed hostilities, jimsaco's post did not deserve to be troll-rated.

by wilderness voice on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:44:06 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Not from what I can tell. (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jimsaco, Scottsdale Jack, livy

Saying anything that isn't lockstep with the democraticness de jour, you get troll-rated. This place isn't about fostering debate and discovering new solutions, it's a propaganda mill. Anyone that says anything out of line with the propaganda gets what they get. Simple as that.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:09:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     You're the one with the propaganda (8+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, darrelplant, PaintyKat, Progressive Moderate, Coherent Viewpoint, KenBee, leonard145b, ImpeachKingBushII

The War of Northern Aggression, yeah right! I've lived in the South and that is code talk for Racist BS. They used that in Richmond when they tried to keep a monument of Lincoln off Monument Boulevard but strange how all the confederate Generals had monuments!

Spare me!

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:55:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Um. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, livy

I never used the term "war of northern aggression". Are you confusing me with someone else?

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:56:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Sorry (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, PaintyKat, leonard145b

that was meant as a reply to jimsaco and I don't know how it ended up under your comment.

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:10:42 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   It's the ajaxy comment post thing. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

vcmvo2, factbased

Screws up for me too. No need to apologize.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:12 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Arguing That The Profiteers Of Free Slave Labor, (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, vcmvo2, majcmb1, Mas Gaviota, NeeshRN

should be compensated and made even richer, may not be Trollable to you, but it sure is to a lot of us.  Go figure!

Additionally, the comment really advocates a Lincoln surrender to the Confederacy.  Lincoln's war was for "Union," not for the abolition of Slavery, until the very end of the Civil War.

In my estimation, this is a post is a lie, that advocates treason and is motivated solely by Racial superiority and compassion for Slave Owners instead of the Enslaved.  That makes it exceedingly Troll-worthy.

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:54:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     This post has nothing to do (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jimsaco, jqb

with either treason or racial superiority.  It has to do with an alternate theory of how the Civil War could have been avoided.  Disagree if you will (again, I do not think it would have worked), but you are reading something into this that is not there.  Therefore, TR is not appropriate.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Lincoln Buying Slaves Is Your "Alternate Theory" (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, vcmvo2, majcmb1, gloryoski

that would have averted War?  And racial superiority had nothing to do with the Civil War, why the South seceded, or why Lincoln refused until the end to even acknowledge they were fighting to free the Slaves?  And to top it all off, the South was not either traitorous or treasonous, in it's secession from, and War against the United States.  OK! I get it now!

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:12:01 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   That's not MY alternate theory (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jimsaco, jqb

but a theory posted by the user above.  And where do you see that I said that racial superiority or treason had nothing to do with the Civil War?  You seemed to be responding to the idea of buying the slaves to avert the war having something to do with racial superiority and treason. That's what I was responding to.  

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:17:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Here's What You Said: (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, vcmvo2, Mas Gaviota

This post has nothing to do with either treason or racial superiority.  It has to do with an alternate theory of how the Civil War could have been avoided.  Disagree if you will (again, I do not think it would have worked), but you are reading something into this that is not there.  Therefore, TR is not appropriate.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM PST

Sounds like defending Pauls' and the commenter's proposal of re-buying of Slaves as an alternate to the Civil War, or you're saying the original comment is not.  Which one is it?

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I was saying (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

that I don't agree that buying the slaves would have avoided the Civil War. This is what I was referring to

that compensated emancipation worked successfully and without bloodshed in many other places.

You can plug your ears and go lalala if you want, but that doesn't make it any less a fact.

I'm saying it was the least bad option.  600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way.

This was jimsaco's post.  Based on my knowledge, the differences between the North and the South were way too deep to avoid the conflict with this solution.  I'm not sure what you think I meant, but this is exactly what I was referring to, nothing more.  Believe what you will.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:36:42 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Where Did "Compensated Emancipation" Work? (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, Shapeshifter, vcmvo2

Show us!  

Second point, you two are the ones plugging your ears.  You can't propose to re-buy People enslaved because they were Black and divorce it from how they came to be Enslaved.  You wouldn't even try, if the situation were reversed.  

Third, you're blaming Lincoln, solely: "600,000 people died doing it Lincoln's way."  I'm done.  Goodnight!

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:46:24 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Dude (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, FunkyEntropy

run away if you have to, but I AM NOT THE ONE who said it worked some places.  I'd never even heard of that before this discussion, and if you read my last post, you'd see that I don't think it would have worked.  On your second point, I'm not trying to divorce it from anything, and that would hold true no matter who it was that was enslaved.  Third, I'm the last one who would blame Lincoln for the Civil War.  I greatly admire the man, always have, for the tough choices he had to make.  It had to weigh on him greatly knowing what would transpire.  I think you need to do some more reading on the subject.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:52:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   youre dealing with anti-intellectual yahoos n/t (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Philpm

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:07:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Great Britain or the English empire (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jimsaco, jqb, FunkyEntropy, Philpm

slaveowners got a percentage of the "value" of their slaves.  The Whigs like MacCaulay, who desparately wanted slavery abolished, thought it was a price worth paying or compromise worth making to get slavery abolished a lot sooner.

by livy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:47:40 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Try Some Facts About What Happened In The US... (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint, leonard145b

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Slavery was an American cancer, and it had to be cut out, or else it would have killed us all. Freehling is not Pollyannaish, however: Slavery may be gone, surgically removed long ago, but its underlying racism afflicts us still. "Southerners called their cornerstone establishment the Peculiar Institution," Freehling writes. "The peculiarity lay not in enslavement itself (a most unpeculiar institution in almost every human culture's history). Rather, the oddity lay in the entrenchment of the New World's most powerful slavery system inside the Western World's most egalitarian (for whites) republic."

In the end, liberty and hypocrisy could not forever co-exist, but what drove Edmund Ruffin to yank the lanyard that fired his Columbian cannon in the dim early hours of April 12, 1861, drives some Americans even now.

We just watched warmongering yahoos march this nation into a bogus and catastrophic war in Iraq and your comment suggests to me that you have exorcised the fevered passions of the antebellum ideologues from your "objective" assessment of, what I'd characterize as unrealistic and unrealizable, "efficiencies."

"You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

by majcmb1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:30:51 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I personally believe (0 / 0)

that we'd have a LOT less racism in this country if we'd paid the slaveowners to go away rather than fought a war.

Before the Civil War, IRISH immigrants, and NOT slaves were at the bottom of the economic pyramid.  When canals had to be dug to tow boats on, doing so was deemed to dangerous and hard for slaves, and entrusted to Irish fresh off the boat, and desperate for their daily bread.

When Lincoln's successors freed the slaves overnight, and then let only carpetbaggers and freed slaves vote in the South, they CREATED the us vs. them racism, whose loathsome vestiges still haunt the South.  When everyone was enfranchised, the South's African-Americans were regrettably left holding the bag.

I deplore racism, and deplore slavery, but I believe Dr. Paul is right; Abraham Lincoln was one of those politicians wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

by livy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     "carrying a cross"? Lincoln was an atheist. n/t (0 / 0)

by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:32:29 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   but the abolitionists, (0 / 0)

his stormtroopers, weren't atheists, but rather generally fanatical Protestants.

by livy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:42:56 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "compensated empancipation" (0 / 0)

or paying slaveowners to stop being a cankersore in the body politic worked in Brazil, the British Empire and the Spanish Empire.  In other words, just about everywhere.  Now if only India would abolish wagebondage.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:26:52 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Thanks! n/t (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, leonard145b

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:07:54 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Then a lot of you suck. (0 / 0)

I disagree with jimsaco, but trollrating his comment is a violation of dKos policy.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:03:16 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Agreed with that (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

You may not agree with the statements (I sure don't), but this is not worthy of a TR.  Uprated to counter.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:00:46 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I beg to differ (0 / 0)

I think the one who made the racist statement deserves the lecture! A TR here or there( that you disagree with) is just a TR. A racist statement about human beings and slavery well that is responsible for an incredible amount of human suffering over the centuries! I'll stand by the TR...

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:29:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Someone really ought to... (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, vcmvo2, Coherent Viewpoint

Write an online history of the civil war, with... i don't know, verifiable facts and history and stuff.

Far too many people seem to have been taught a version of the civil war in school where the North shot first and the war was completely about the North being pricks and nothing else.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:33:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          The Gone with the Wind view (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Shapeshifter, Coherent Viewpoint

of the civil war is pervasive in certain areas of the South! Never mind Fort Sumter. Never mind the "invasion" of the North when Lee had to march into Pennsylvania to prove his point and all. It's only the Yankees who were bad and vicious. Talk about the POWS at Andersonville in the South and see how quickly they scatter!

Racists get TR'ed without apology from me and that "War of Northern Aggression" is classic code for it.

Don't hurt their feelings with a TR though but buying and owning human beings- hey that's Ok! Just so long as we pay their owners for them and then free them. Oh, please ...It's disgusting. And it all comes from the warped mind of Ron Paul.

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:37:48 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I hadn't heard the term 'War of Northern (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, vcmvo2, leonard145b

Agression' in awhile. There was zero chance that Lincoln could have bought his way out of the Civil War without destroying the Union.

There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:28:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Your 7th grade history text was not by (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2

Henry Timrod then. After all SC is described as being a difficult place to live "too small for a nation and too large for an asylum"  

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:48:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I've never been to SC - I try to stay away from (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

vcmvo2

the bright red states. Anyplace that gave us Stephen Colbert can't be all bad, right? I haven't the faintest clue who Henry Timrod is or who wrote my 7th grade history text. That was also awhile ago.

There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:25:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Unfortunately I have (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

livy

And though many people were lovely there I had to hide my "Yankee" roots in order to practice law there. I was kindly advised to be very careful if I didn't want to injure my clent's case. As my client was elderly and being held against her will in a horrible nursing home; I was quite careful. The time I spent in Virginia had softened my accent. But there were several more than uncomfortable moments.

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:11 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You Keep Saying It's "FACT" (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, vcmvo2

but you haven't cited any sources.

Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word for it.  Back up your claim.

by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:46:25 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If You Want Out Of Iraq So Damn Bad (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, Shapeshifter

why don't you vote for Richardson or Kucinich?  It's not as though there are no Democrats advocating immediate withdrawal.

by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:49:55 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Kucinich isn't going to win. (0 / 0)

I wish he could. His fundraising is flat, he doesn't appeal to those who like the slick type of democrat that all the rest are, and most think he's a crackpot after the ufo exchange.

And Richardson is running for a cabinet position. He might as well not vote, as to vote for either... it will have the same effect on the Iraq folly.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:00:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Neither is Ron Paul n/t (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Shapeshifter, vcmvo2, creeper

-3.12, -5.90

by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:28:30 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I abhor slavery, (0 / 0)

and I abhor unnecessary wars.  In a perfect world the slaveowners would have realized that slavery wasn't "nice," and set their slaves free. But that didn't happen.  

As a committed pacifist, I think paying slaveowners to stop a practice that was horrible for the country would have been a lot smarter than putting the whole country through a war.  And I think there would have been a lot less racism without the war.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:22:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "Compensated?" For The Sweat Of Their Brows (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, Shapeshifter

when whipping the helpless slave?  No, of course not!  My bad! No...I've got it...

They were ENTITLED TO compensation for the generations of free labor "engineered" by their ancestors' ingenuity...yeah!  That's just about 'right!'

I was totally gobsmacked when Timmeh let Paul get away with claiming that Lincoln should not have started the Civil War!?!

Has Timmeh or Paul never heard of Fort Sumter?

Our society is SO sick - and iy deeper than sex and porn.

"You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

by majcmb1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:08:32 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   There definitely are ideas for which Ron Paul (0 / 0)

can be criticized.  Would abolishing the Federal Reserve work?  Would the poor survive his libertarian dream?

But I don't think it's fair to him, or accurate, to imply that he believes that slaveowners were "entitled" to a payoff.  I believe his beliefs come out of his dislike of war.  Better to give people money they don't deserve, than to force good people to fight an unavoidable war.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:32:17 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Is he... (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

Implicitly endorsing the notion that the system of slavery is not something the government should have a hand in regulating? That seems pretty... well... vile. I think "vile" is a good description, there.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:28:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You want to know what's FUBAR? (17+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, jqb, phenry, Geotpf, ryder92111, MadEye, modemocrat, Shapeshifter, historys mysteries, oibme, Philpm, Coherent Viewpoint, novapsyche, creeper, spencerh, journalschism

The only democratic challenger in FL-10 (as of right now) is planning to change her party affiliation to vote for this guy.  She had published the news on her blog website.

That, my friends, is the wingnuttery on the left side-- when anti-war means we foresake all of our other principles in blind support of peace.

Boycotting CNN: biased news networks are bad for America, period.

by jpfdeuce on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   you know what else is FUBAR (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

IL dac, Coherent Viewpoint, NeeshRN

Rs who favor compensating slaveholders for people they had no moral right to own in the first place, but who are rabidly opposed to compensating the slaves themselves or their descendants for the generations of free labor that built fortunes all over this country.

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:54:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Exactly -- (9+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, Shapeshifter, historys mysteries, Coherent Viewpoint, novapsyche, leonard145b, journalschism, Tennessee Dave

 Here in Washington State -- the same people who have Ron Paul signs -- also have had -- racist signs about Native Americans during the "fishing wars" when the tribes took their treaty rights to court and won.

 Same people have yard signs -- "Get US out of the UN" -- reasons = racism.

 I look at just who is supporting RP -- and I don't want to be in their company.

 That racist quote doesn't surprise me.

 Also -- the fact that he is a rabid "free market" advocate -- means that he is a member of a CULT -- and he is only interested in a very few getting very rich.

by Carib and Ting on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:21 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If he's a straight-up racist... (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Eustace Tilley, livy

How come I don't see it when I hear him talk? If you find some klan member or neo-nazi, it literally oozes out of them as they speak, even about things that you wouldn't guess that it'd be relevant (to them) to.

If he is one, he seems to hide it well. And I have my doubts that anyone as goofy-and-naive-sounding is able to act so well. Supposing you're right, he's missed his calling, theater or Hollywood would have been a more natural fit.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   It's the ones who aren't obvious (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, jqb, SeattleLiberal, novapsyche, leonard145b, journalschism

who are the most dangerous.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Perhaps. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Philpm

But I'm not a 5 yr old either. There's "obvious to the media" and then there's "obvious to an individual", and that last one is always there.

I suspect that Bush is a true racist. I wouldn't be shocked to discover Hillary was, but that when they're useful to her she's practical enough about it. But Ron Paul doesn't have that vibe.

It all smells bad, and it's not Paul that stinks. If they really did support him, they'd be happy to hear him disavow and pull ahead for it. That they're making so much noise, I have to wonder if another campaign hasn't put them up to it in exchange for favors.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:59:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   A guy who says 95% of black men in DC (12+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, darrelplant, jqb, phenry, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, jfadden, Philpm, creeper, leonard145b, Mas Gaviota, NeeshRN

are criminals. That doesn't give you the racist "vibe" about Paul?

Wow.

I think I've stepped into the Twilight Zone.

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:11:54 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If you were actually trying to be reasonable... (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

West

It'd be worth replying to.

I'm supposing that he didn't write that. As claimed. If you have evidence to support that contention, present it... you'll be the talk of the media for the next week, and you can rest satisfied that you destroyed whatever hope he had of winning.

I've listened to him, several hours in all, words that actually come out of his mouth. And no, I don't get a racist vibe from him at all. Please link to a video of him speaking, and give me some indication of where in it that I should pick up the racist vibe, or hear racist words.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:21:40 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Where is the strident Paul effort (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, phenry, Shapeshifter, Philpm, leonard145b, zeytoun

to distance himself from those words if he didn't write them, and to expose the bastards who are besmirching his good name?

He did get (and keep) a campaign contribution from an avowed white supremacist, so he has a few bucks to do so.

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Heh. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, West

We see that from every alleged child molester, and we never believe it. Never.

If I were wrongly accused of that, I believe I wouldn't bother to stridently proclaim my innocence. And people would be both glad and quick to condemn me for it.

I don't see how this is any different.

I do know that other politicians are always slick about it, and careful to distance themselves from such, and that rightly or wrongly, I fault them for being so slick about it.

He did get (and keep) a campaign contribution from an avowed white supremacist, so he has a few bucks to do so.

Um, I think you have that backwards. That makes whathisname a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul would be a racist supporter if he gave money to whathisname.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:32:32 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          You are too far gone (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, phenry, Progressive Moderate, Coherent Viewpoint, creeper, leonard145b

Ron Paul would be a racist supporter if he gave money to whathisname.

That is a textbook example of the typical BS semantics used by people to justify their support of racists.

If anyone of the the other GOP candidates got a contribution from that guy, it would be returned before the ink dried on the check.

Now that's saying something, because that entire GOP field--in the words of Howard Dean--looks like they're from the 1950s and talk like they're from the 1850s.

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:40:07 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     ? (0 / 0)

If anyone of the the other GOP candidates got a contribution from that guy, it would be returned before the ink dried on the check.

Yes. And whether or not this is the case (it is, I don't deny it), they're all unfit to be president, or for that matter to hold any public office.

That he's not like them doesn't make him bad. That's the thing you don't seem to get... if he's not acting like they would, that all by itself makes him look a little better, even if you're not used to it. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.

He voted against the impeachment thing awhile back, and it sort of pissed me off, but then all the other republicans voted for it, and it made me sit back and wonder what was up. If he's voting differently from them, maybe that's not all bad.

Now that's saying something, because that entire GOP field--in the words of Howard Dean--looks like they're from the 1950s and talk like they're from the 1850s.

In many ways the 1950s would be preferable to now, even if in other ways they wouldn't be. As for the 1850s, that'd not be my choice, but it's as good as any. Personally, I think Giuliani and Romney sound like they're from some barbarian age, and Huckabee as if he were straight out of the crusades.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Just FYI: (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, IL dac, Philpm, Coherent Viewpoint, journalschism

SOP is to donate vile contributions to a suitable charity. That way the contributor doesn't get the money back but it doesn't "taint" your campaign.

Ron Paul could have easily done that. But he didn't.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:42:53 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   When OJ's done looking for the real killer... (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, Mia Dolan, journalschism

...perhaps he'll take some time to help us find the real racist in Ron Paul's office.

May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him.

by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I heard OJ found the real killer (0 / 0)

in a mirror store of all places!

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:24:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   "I'm supposing" -- that's what passes in your (0 / 0)

world for "reasonable"?

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:18:24 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   help me i'm slipping into the Twilight Zone (0 / 0)

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:52:21 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You've been hoodwinked (0 / 0)

Come back from the Twilight Zone; he didn't say it.

by Eustace Tilley on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:59:11 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hitler managed to hide a lot of his tendencies (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

with his economic policies.  Once the economy was up and running, then he started making his plans known to the world.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hitler managed to put a good face on it... (0 / 0)

For the media. When was Mein Kampf published though? What was the military buildup for, if not for war?

I mean, sure, there might be things like that with Paul. Something not quite hidden, but not quite obvious. But what is it, where is it? All we're geting here is a wankfest...

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   The military buildup didn't begin (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

until after the economy was established again.

I understand where you are going with when "Mein Kampf" was published, but at the time it was published, Hitler was just a two-bit player in an attempted coup.  I doubt that a lot of Germans were focused on reading it at the time.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:07:06 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Mein Kampf (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Philpm

Hitler wrote MK in the early '20s, during his stint in jail. The first part was published in 1925, well before he came into official power. I've got a copy of the first complete American edition, from 1939.

It became a bestseller in Germany, with 10 million copies printed, although -- like people voting for Nixon -- few admit to having actually read it.

There's a little saga about the various struggles over ownership to the intellectual rights of the book at Copyreich.

I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

by darrelplant on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:40:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   As you point out, it was ancient history... (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

IL dac

...by the time he was running for office. If you have to look that far into someone's past to smear them, they must be a good person. It was probably just written by a staffer, anyways.... (snark)

by zeytoun on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Amen, phil (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, TrueBlueMajority, Philpm

"You liberals keep throwing us your 'change.' We'll keep telling you where to stick it." --Tennessee caller on C-Span 1-3-08

by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:08:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   ? (0 / 0)

So his alleged racism isn't obvious, its covert?

Then you disagree with Kos?    The point of this diary is to describe Pauls OVERT racism.  

by West on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You mean he's (15+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, DelRPCV, musing85, pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, jqb, phenry, vcmvo2, Philpm, KenBee, novapsyche, Mia Dolan, creeper, factbased, journalschism

not ending every speech with, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!"? How surprising. He isn't a moron. Saying that racists can't hide it is naive.

That article he wrote...look at the history of it. Originally, he claimed it was his. Then someone else wrote it, but the sentiment was his. Then it became "Ghost written."

It was his newsletter. He had to approve everything in it before it could be published. His.

He doesn't have that support from white supremacists for nothing.

You don't see it because you don't want to.

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:12:05 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Heh. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

West

I see things for what they are, and withhold judgement until I have enough facts to do so reasonably.

If the best you can manage, is to tell me what I see and what I want, why should I bother to listen to you?

And it's so stupid. I am a supporter, I will vote for him, but he is truly flawed. If you wanted to scare me, you'd not be making shit like this up, you'd be talking about the real flaws. But to do that, you lose all the bogeyman appeal, and he merely becomes a flawed human being whose reason doesn't extend to every subject. It's a somewhat humanizing process, and that's the last thing you want to happen, because even a flawed candidate is better than the dishonest sacks of shit that are the only other viable options.

not ending every speech with, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!"? How surprising. He isn't a moron. Saying that racists can't hide it is naive.

You've obviously not listened to very many. Perhaps you've heard a few David Duke soundbites when it makes it to the 6'o'clock news, but that's it. If you had listened to any, you'd know how absurd it is what you've just said. It is palpable, it oozes from their pores and sloshes out from their lipless little reptillian mouths with every single word, if not in choice then in intonation. The fuckers can't talk about anything, even the weather is some evil jew plot.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:39:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I'm not making anything up (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, phenry, Shapeshifter, Philpm, Mia Dolan

I see this as a real flaw.

Your last paragraph is discussing the extremes. People that make a living being racists do have a tendency to be more upfront about it. That is why they end up on the news. It is also why they are always a fringe group not taken very seriously by most.

In all things human, there is a spectrum.

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:01:18 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I don't see it as a flaw. (0 / 0)

And I have to seriously wonder. We probably both agree on who the extremists are, and that they exist.

But you're positing a whole coven of secret racists, that don't give off any signs of their racism except those that you magically see. They're probably just your version of McCarthy's communists.

Until I see something more concrete than a newsletter from 20 years ago that is acknowledged as having been written by someone else, I don't know that I can believe in your kind of racist.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:16:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Can you tell a racist (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint

by just observing them once or twice?  If they are not spouting racist bile, would you know one right away?  Probably not.  I've known many who you would not suspect are, and you only find out by knowing them for a period of time.

The destination is known, and the mode of transportation is definitely a handbasket.

by Philpm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:10:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Once or twice? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

livy

No. I'm not as bad as some, but I've heard the words spoken from his mouth on video on dozens of occassions that must total many hours of video footage.

If they are not spouting racist bile, would you know one right away?  Probably not.

Perhaps not. It's not as probable though, in my opinion, as you make it out to be.

But no, the gentle and friendly demeanor, the lack of sarcasm or cynicism. The inflection of his voice. Hell, he's disinterested in nearly every tangetial issue to racism that there is, with the exception of banking/monetary stuff (and the worldwide jewish conspiracy bullshit that the subject conjures for some).

I listen to him, and I get the impression that here's a man that's never so much as told a polock joke in his life.

But perhaps I'm wrong. It's just shameful how many here are so perfectly certain that they're right. In so many ways.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:37:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Well, (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, Shapeshifter, Philpm

his own words are what influenced me. His voting record and statements of which social programs he would end and why also make me suspicious.

Pointing out past statements that were racist and then not finding a rejection of those statements, to you, is shameful? Not ignoring his record is a bad thing?

Excusing your past by making claims of "Ghost writers" doesn't really say you don't believe them. If you support someone, you should be aware of what they said. If you want to justify those words, or ignore them, then that is not honesty either. I won't do it.

Show me with a link where he has outright rejected those past words--and maybe I'll buy what you are saying.

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:47:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     His voting record's fair game... (0 / 0)

As long as you do a fair job of interpreting. Just a for instance, but you'd think that all the republicans were for impeachment save him, to look at the voting records. That interpretation just doesn't make any sense.

And I can see how you'd be suspicious of him, considering what he says of social programs. I can find no fault there. Hell, people should be naturally suspicious of what all politicians say, until they've long since proven things otherwise.

I can't show you a link, I have none. I'd not be shocked to learn that no rejection exists, of the kind you'd accept. I also have my doubts it would do much good, you don't like him even if he's not a racist. That's the part I don't understand... why repeat all this bullshit, when it's enough to say you don't like him?

There are things that scare me about him too. His ideas about religion are dangerous. And it amazes me sometimes, that a man who says we need to end the drug war because criminalization just breeds a black market doesn't realize that the same rule applies to immigration... as long as we continue to make legal immigration impossible, only the illegal variety will exist. And these are just legitimate criticisms that occur to me, I'm that the more liberal crowd here on DK could come up with many more. But it's more fun to repeat this crap.

When the perfect democrat candidate comes along, the same type of smears will happen to them, and you'll all howl. You'll all still deserve it though.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:17:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You have no link-- (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, IL dac, Philpm, Mia Dolan

so no rejection you know of. Then you tell me what I'll accept and dismiss me with, "there's nothing you would believe anyway." That's a cop out.

See, the thing is, I really do change my mind when new evidence is presented, but usually not until. So sue me.

I don't like him as a candidate. I don't have personal hatred for him.

Those things that you see as "dangerous" are what I see as enough to not support him at all. I can agree with him on the war but if he ends it soon after being elected--we are then stuck with "President" Ron Paul. All of those other factors then very much come into play.

Actually, I do see the faults of our candidates as well, which is why I am still undecided. The system is as close to broken as you can get but it is the one we're stuck with for now. I still have to pick the one that seems to represent the largest percentage of what I believe and the rest is compromise. There are things I am not willing to compromise on--and Paul embodies too many of those.

Why are you here? You claim you never voted before, you don't like Democrats, you will go back to not voting if Paul is not the nominee and you are supporting a Republican on a site that says right in the mission statement that this site is not here to support Republicans.

Do you agree with Paul on property rights? Do you believe that property owners should be able to control their property? If so, then I really must ask you--why are you here?

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:12:44 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   All I meant was this. (0 / 0)

Even if I somehow prove he's not a racist, it doesn't change anything. You still don't like him, for reasons that are much more understandable. I know I'm making an assumption here, but you differ with him greatly on policy. Fine. No point in arguing that. It's fair. You might even be right, though I don't have any idea how to go about proving or disproving that your policy ideas are better.

And, as I said, there is no link. If he's rejected it, I have not heard of it. I don't think he's a racist, I could be wrong. If you're suspicious that he is, well, you have a right to be, and it's even smart to be. Be suspicious of it, there's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant that. But don't embrace the accussations as gospel, as the ones here who call me a racist and keep telling me I'd be more comfortable at davidduke.com and are being recommended out the wazzoo for it.

Why are you here? You claim you never voted before, you don't like Democrats, you will go back to not voting if Paul is not the nominee and you are supporting a Republican on a site that says right in the mission statement that this site is not here to support Republicans.

I am here, because about 3 months ago, another site linked to here with yet another diary accusing Paul of defecating on women while eating human babies and strangling puppies. I'm supporting someone who is running for the republican nomination, but if Free Republic and Redstate and Little Green Footballs are to be believed, is in no way a republican. I trust them to know their own. I honestly think I won't bother voting if he loses, but nothing anyone here has said has dissuaded me of it. I don't like democrats, but only because they're politicians... not because they're democrats. Democrats, after all, have enabled Bush how many times? But I don't hold it against the party label necessarily, just the occupation. This site can claim what it likes in the mission statement, but if it wants to pretend to be a place of discourse, it should expect the likes of me from time to time. It could just as easily shut down the forums, and just issue edicts of who to vote for.

I mean really, if I'm not welcome here, say so. Is that what you want, what others here want? You can just all have fun in your little wankfest smearing Paul, and no one will say anything contrary. I'm sure that's not an environment ripe for abuse.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:31:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   This place never pretended to be (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Mia Dolan, livy

a place of discourse about all candidates. Ever. There are places on the web for that if that is your interest.

Even among Democratic candidates there is room for "discussion" in an environment set up to elect Democrats. That is what this place is. It is in the FAQ.

If you are here to support Paul, you actually are going against what the owner of the site and admins have stated Dkos is for. So, this place is not for your attempt to cheer lead for Paul. That would be that whole "property rights" thing again. It must be difficult when an important issue to your candidate actually makes your posting here hypocritical.

No one ever accused Paul of "eating puppies," and the person you say told you to go the the David Duke site did so to let you see the unabashed support your candidate is getting from Duke. Hyperbole is unbecoming.

There is a difference between "bringing up valid concerns" and "wankfest smearing."

Until Paul no longer has an (R) after his name, he is a Republican candidate. Lyndon LaRouche claims to be a Democrat and I think he is a complete whack job. The Republican sites have an opinion about your candidate. They have a right to do that.

I disagree with them on many issues but don't go there because they have a right to control the content of their site. Same thing here.

If Paul could, he would run as a Libertarian, but they have the same chance as the Greens of winning the Presidency--so he is "pretending" he is a Republican. Sounds kind of like a "politician", doesn't it?

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:08:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Heh. (0 / 0)

the person you say told you to go the the David Duke site did so to let you see the unabashed support your candidate is getting from Duke. Hyperbole is unbecoming.

David Duke also breathes. Please stop being such a racist, SeattleLiberal, stop breathing.

That's what I hear, when I hear asinine arguments like that. I've probably been democrat-sympathetic for years, and since Bush it's only grown stronger. But of late, I've seen why democrats aren't fit to lead either. It's because of things like this.

When the young guy at my other job was ranting against unions, I'd want to slap him. When hardcore libertarians go on about the market solving all things, I want to strangle them... and many other examples besides.

But people here tell lies to win. They tell them to themselves so they can feel good, and to others to get their way. Sorry, can't go for that.

Property rights? Funny that you'd only invoke them when they're convenient for you. No one's asked me to leave or stop posting. When they do, I'll probably stop reading here also... because there's nothing here worth reading.

If Paul could, he would run as a Libertarian, but they have the same chance as the Greens of winning the Presidency--so he is "pretending" he is a Republican

I know, great isn't it? Ballot access laws and the party duopoly have subverted our democracy for a century now. And rather than just give up and go home, he's found a really clever way to beat them at their own game. Even the timing is great, any other election year, and he'd be a nobody.

Sounds kind of like a "politician", doesn't it?

Not at all. A politician would be cutting deals and brokering favors to be one of the blesed candidates.

Many here go on about how it's only labels that matter, and that Hillary and Lieberman are democrats, so apparently all it takes to acquire that label is to jump through some hoops. He's done that, so there is no dishonesty or deception inherent in his bid that way.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:43:25 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I have a question (0 / 0)

are you from his District? You talk as if you have watched him personally over the years.

Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are teh sux

by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:53:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     No, not from his district. (0 / 0)

I've never seen him in person. Just catching up on alot of video footage.

You'd think he was polling at 75%, the way the kossers here rant against him, or that any of the other republicans are more worthy nominees. Everyone says he can't win, but if vitriol is any indication, he's going to kick ass in Iowa and not stop.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:10:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   The reason we react more (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, Philpm, Coherent Viewpoint

to him is that many people that claim to be progressives are inexplicably buying what he is selling and overlooking, like you, many things most of us are unwilling to compromise on. We aren't loosing votes to the others.

I have a lot of vitriol towards David Duke and Fred Phelps. Does that mean they might win the nomination as well? Do I have to spell out which logical fallacy you just used?

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:17:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   How many David Duke soundbites is too many? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, Shapeshifter

Forget racism, moron, Ron Paul is the most dishonest person running for president today.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I've been trollrated for namecalling. (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, Voluntaryist

Wonder if it'll happen to you. I'd bet $20 it doesn't.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:12:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You've been trollrated (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, Shapeshifter, Mas Gaviota

for lying on behalf of a racist piece of crap.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I don't lie. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

I'm not racist.

But keep repeating it. The two minute hate is about to start.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:33:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Try DavidDuke.com (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd

No hate for people like you there.

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:37:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     You have no idea what kind of person I am. (0 / 0)

But you've shown me what kind of person you are.

This is Redstate, but for a few keyword substitutions. The anti-Ron Paul diaries are practically the same though.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:41:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Try again (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, Coherent Viewpoint, ImpeachKingBushII

I didn't say go to Redstate.  Even those people know better than to support a scumbag like Ron Paul. My suggestion to you was DavidDuke.com.

Here is the link, and if you scroll down you can read something written by your hero:

http://www.davidduke.com/...

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:45:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Good Grief, You're Right! (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, Mia Dolan, ImpeachKingBushII

David Duke is promoting Ron Paul's candidacy.

Case closed for me.

by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:59:07 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Just because there are scum here like (0+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

Mia Dolan (quite possibly an agent provocateur) doesn't mean this is like RedState.

It's amusing, in the sick sort of way that people like Mia amuse, that she links to "something written by your hero" which is Ron Paul commenting on the NIE on Iran and how it confirms what he has said in the past about the bluster of Bush administration -- something that even those of use who disagree with Paul on many other things would agree with in this instance. Of course, we are supposed to damn Paul merely because his piece was posted at davidduke.com -- a bit of irrational reasoning if ever there was one. Ron Paul is a very poor choice for President, but not for that reason.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:41:55 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Hey asshole (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint

Its not like Duke just linked to Ron Paul's article - the article is there with Ron Paul's express permission and consent.  Paul should be damned for having anything whatsoever to do with David Duke.  

And Duke's website isn't the only far right racist nutbag group Paul is linked to.  There's a picture on this thread with Paul and the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Stromfront.  

Paul is right about the Iraq war, but his affiliation with racists and neo-Nazis is one of the many reasons Ron Paul is a poor choice for president.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:48 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   WTF? (0 / 0)

You aren't a Paulbot - why are you defending Paul's association with David Duke?  Again, its not a link - its a whole article, printed with the express permission of Ron Paul.  I think that any decent candidate (or decent human being) would try to disassociate themselves from Duke or from the Stormfront leader and former Klan grand Wizard who donated to Paul and was photographed with him.  

John Edwards for President

by Mia Dolan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:40:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I defended nothing other than reason. n/t (0 / 0)

by jqb on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:28:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Troll? You think? (0 / 0)

I believe strongly, from reading most of this thread, that NoMoreNicksLeft is not only a troll, but a troll-smelling, troll-shaped troll-y troll Troll. I am surprised at the amount of time they're willing to devote to their cause without compensation. I almost want to believe they're getting paid -- at least then they'd have one coherent motivation for their nonsense.

This is just a feeling I have based on reading the poster's comments and diaries. The tactics used -- the "argue then retreat" -- it all stinks to high heaven. I hate to see people using real mental effort trying to have a discussion with a person like this.

Ron Paul is against abortion, regulation of business, and would like to drown our government in Norquist's bathtub. He's also a proud bigot. It makes my brain want to explode when I see people willing to condone all of that, just because he says he'll end the war. Believe it or not, there was plenty of evil and stupidity in America before the war, and there will be plenty after the war. A lot of it looks just like Ron Paul.

I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter in real life. I'm starting to think that a lot of his "rabid online support" is actually a handful of people like our trolly little friend here.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

by Valentine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:44:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If he's so proud, why is he denying it? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

Or were you just on a roll, and couldn't think of another adjective? Maybe we should all take up a collection and buy you a thesaurus.

just because he says he'll end the war. Believe it or not, there was plenty of evil and stupidity in America before the war, and there will be plenty after the war. A lot of it looks just like Ron Paul.

This is why the democrats haven't ended it. You wonder why Pelosi is so naive, or why they won't go to bat to end the atrocity.

It's not because they don't have a big enough majority.  Or because Cheney is extorting them somehow. It's complete indifference. It does not matter in the scheme of things. "There's always plenty of evil, the important thing is that democrat programs get put into law, and how can ending the war help that?!".

I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter in real life.

The black guy at work is lukewarm about voting for Paul, because he thinks that he can't win. Other than that, he says he wants to vote for him. My boss wants to, his wife. Two of my former coworkers will. One of their wives, I happen to know will. The one coworker's 18 yr old son that was an intern this summer. Me. My fiance will, I think. One of my friends. My grandfather said on the phone that he likes him, but doesn't think that he can win. And I've half-talked one of my friends into voting for him "just to fuck with the republicans". My boss's boss might even be talked into it yet, he used to be a Thompson supporter, but was laughing at him last time it came up, over how badly that campaign has went. Personally, I count over 11 votes of those people that I know. And I don't go to any of the meetup crap, I've declined every time my boss has tried to cajole me into doing it. I don't think I'm part of some clique that thinks no one else can win.

But you definitely are part of such. In less than two months, we'll know just what the score is.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:27:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Romney is more dishonest (0 / 0)

but fewer people are buying into Romney's crap these days.

for some reason otherwise reasonable people can't see through Ron Paul...

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:02:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   real flaws, aside from being racist (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Coherent Viewpoint

pro-life, anti-evolution, denies global warming, opposes separation of church and state, opposes federally funded public education, opposes federally funded health care, opposes federal consumer protection -- those are just a few things I got off a pro- Ron Paul blog. Any Democrat or liberal for Ron Paul is an ignoramus or a moron.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:27:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

������   Calling the Civil Rights Act a mistake (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, jqb, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, novapsyche

is pretty clear cut to me.

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:35:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yes. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Sparhawk

Let's all boil it down to the most simplistic interpretation possible. That makes alot of sense.

Ever bother to listen to the reasons behind that, or are there sacred laws that can never be questioned, not even in some of the minor details?

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:40:27 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Minor details? (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, jqb, Shapeshifter

His reason was a high-falutin' version of "my restaurant, my rules.  N*****s out."

To answer your question, yes.  Anyone who questions the Civil Rights Act is not someone anyone around here should be supporting.  It's unAmerican.

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:13:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Not Just a Racist But a Sexist, Too. n/t (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

journalschism

by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:38:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Thank you, Kos. My point exactly (0 / 0)

I've been trying to get the point across that this guy is neo-nazi, sheet-wearing KKK-type racist. His other ideas don't matter (however nutty they might be). This is too big of a boulder to get over. Forget boulder. This is like trying to get over Mt. Everest. And why didn't Timmy boy bring up this quote on MTP? Could Timmy be a racist too?

People who support Ron Paul are out-and-out racists as well - no two ways about it. And if they don't know about his policies or stances on these subjects, they should do their due dilligence and get informed - rather than opening their mouths and their wallets.

The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze and dumbfound me.

by ccr4nine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:30:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Re: NO THANK YOU KOS!!!!!! (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

"I make no distinction between him and those who support him." journalschism

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." ~ Bush
http://72.14.205.104/..."

Kind of a sweeping generalization of the very archetype you loathe, i.e. Bush?

Who knew the partisan balloons would have so much in common with the likes of Bush, Lie-berman, et.al?

Just because a lie is repeated many times (Paul is a racist, Paul is a nutjob racist, Paul is a straight up racist) doesn't make it so!

Ex.1: Saddam has WMDs, Saddam is a threat to us, Saddam is getting yellow cakes from Niger, SADDAM...
Ex 2: Iran has a nuclear program. Iran IS making Nukes. There is nothing the mullahs would like more than nuclear bombs...

by rednova on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:12:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     He didn't write it ... (9+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, Jim Riggs, winstnsmth, mediaprisoner, West, Aaron Bonn, GATXER, ElJames, Happy Days

NY Times Magazine:

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.

Free Market News:

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

by mildewmaximilian on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:29:48 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   And again I say (21+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, TrueBlueMajority, jqb, phenry, suswa, Geotpf, ryder92111, tamandua, psnyder, modemocrat, SeattleLiberal, Shapeshifter, Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2, oibme, Philpm, novapsyche, creeper, Carib and Ting

It took him 10 YEARS to disavow the newsletter.  If the newsletter really managed to get written, published, and mailed without Paul's awareness of the content (seriously??), at some point after its publication he surely must have become aware of it.  But he took no action (like, say, sending out a letter at the time to all subscribers apologizing for the content of that particular newsletter).  It's only a decade later, when questioned by a reporter, that suddenly it's a ghostwriter and he knew nothing.

Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

by milton333 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:35:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Another appeal to implausible deniability. (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV, phenry, milton333, vcmvo2, creeper, Carib and Ting, leonard145b

Another paragon of virtue preserving his virginity by an appeal to original ignorance.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:42:43 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Paul Refuses to Release His Newsletters (14+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, jqb, phenry, suswa, modemocrat, SeattleLiberal, vcmvo2, Jim P, novapsyche, creeper, Carib and Ting, leonard145b

And we can see why.  There is, no doubt, much else to disavow. So before progressives wet their pants with joy that a Republican actually opposes the war in Iraq -- let's see all that he had to say when no one was looking.

FrederickClarkson.com and TalktoAction.org

by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:46:24 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   This newsletter was from 1992, right? (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, wilderness voice, livy, Garden Neighbor, NoMoreNicksLeft

My question would be: what is the most recent racist writing or comment from Ron Paul?

I do believe it is possible that people change over time.  

You might say he is being careful about what he says now, since he has become an internet phenomenon and is in the spotlight.  But no one was looking just a year ago.  Is there anything from this century that reflects racist opinions and positions?

I'm certainly not a Ron Paul supporter (I'm a Democrat, for Pete sake) but I do think it's a shame to tar people for life with old beliefs they may have moved away from.

With Ron Paul, I don't know if he has or hasn't moved away from those beliefs.  Does anyone else?

So far, he has been a breath of fresh air in the republican debates--the sole voice of sanity amidst their chest-beating tough talk re. Iraq and "terrorists."

"When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

by Happy Days on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:00:48 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   He's isolationist, not a "peace" lover (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, phenry, Progressive Moderate, vcmvo2, Mia Dolan

The core of his support comes from people who don't want to fight brown people over there so they can fight them over here.  He is intentionally courting the Stormfronters in code.

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:18:23 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If he's courting stormfronters... (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, wobbledon, Happy Days

Why do I like what he has to say? I'm not one of them.

He talks about trading with all nations, allowing people from the rest of the world to come here, people from here to travel anywhere else in the world, lifting sanctions with Cuba and Iran, sending diplomats and ambassadors to them...

Near as I can tell, the only things he wants to isolate, are our bombs from other countries' collateral damage aka civillians.

"Isolationist" is meaningless in the way you use it, other than as a smear. Feudal Japan was isolationist. Paul is just not a bloodthirsty warmonger.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:50:12 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   They probably (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego

wonder what in the hell you see in him. It is the oddest mixture of supporters I can recall seeing.

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   See? (0 / 0)

That's something that can be said about Paul that can't be denied. It really is the oddest mix ever.

And even as one myself, I haave no idea what to make of it.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Waiter, this is not spring chicken (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, phenry, creeper

He was 57 when that newsletter was published; he was 67 when he disavowed it. Kinda like finding religion on one's deathbed.

by beetsnotbeats on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:33:53 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   But there are (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, jqb, Happy Days

more parts to the Ron Paul phenomenon than meet the eye. This "racist part" of him hasn't been out there very much. He is hitting a chord with many people because there is so much anger about the outsourcing of the computer industry, anger about the war and anger about the religious right.

He's got a ferocious following simply because being outraged over racism seems to have a lot of competing outrages, lately.

"I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94)

by suswa on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:35:39 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Moved away from? (12+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

badgerminor, taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, jqb, cognitive dissonance, vcmvo2, Nightprowlkitty, Mia Dolan, creeper, sabishi, spencerh

but I do think it's a shame to tar people for life with old beliefs they may have moved away from.

With Ron Paul, I don't know if he has or hasn't moved away from those beliefs.  Does anyone else?

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c144/duke1676/ronpauldonblack.jpg

Left: Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Center: Don Black, the owner/founder of neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Right: Don Balck's son, Derek Black, founder, Stormfront Kids.

Can you name one other natioanal candidate who would even associate with this type. ...and if it were "just a coincidence" and neo-nazis "just happened" to show up at one of their events for a photo-op....would not release a disclaimer immediately?

Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform

by Duke1676 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:04:01 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Three days ago (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

badgerminor, taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, TrueBlueMajority, jqb, IL dac, spencerh

When he said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong because it interferes with private property rights.  Next question?

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:42:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   So? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Dr Seuss

Suppose that me, a nobody, told a racist joke when I was 19.

40 years later, I run for president, and that comes out. Is it problematic that I didn't call a press conference back when I was 19 yrs old, and apologize for it?

I'd never even heard of him 15 years ago. Most hadn't. Hell, if the polls are to be believed, many still haven't. You're gauging how long he waited to disavow, and trying to use this to show him to be a closet racist, without telling us where the cutoff is after which it would no longer be genuine. If he waited 6 months and a day, he's a racist, but at the 180 day mark still good? Is it 2 weeks and no more? 15 minutes? One wonders just what would be acceptable, and if that were somehow the case, you'd not move the deadline forward a few days or hours.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:20:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Also... (0 / 0)

This was his newsletter. He had editorial control. He put his name on it. If he didn't write it and didn't believe in what was written then how did it end up in his publication? This whole "did he write it or not" thing is a bit of a red herring.

The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

by Shapeshifter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:53:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   He authorized it, even if he didn't author it (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, SeattleLiberal, Philpm, novapsyche, Mia Dolan, leonard145b

Let's be real here.  No politician writes his or her own speeches or newsletters these days.  So what?  This was a Ron Paul document, and he let it sit out there for years before disclaiming it.  Even now, he's continuing the dog whistle to hard core racists with the MTP slavery crap and the line in his stump speech about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional (which is a head scratcher for most people, but red meat for his underground militia base).

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:43 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   This is what I (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego, DelRPCV, jqb, creeper, factbased, livy

laugh about. I used to publish newsletters. The content of that letter needed to be approved by the person who's name was on it.

So, to deny he had an idea of what was in there, he has 2 optoins.

1- He's lying and knew about it.
2- He is so incompetent that he never looked at what was going out with his name on it.

I guess they need to decide which option they prefer. I'm going with number 1.

Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

by SeattleLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:21:51 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   The kindest interpretation is (0 / 0)

that he wasn't too professional.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:10:35 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   which raises the question (0 / 0)

if he is up to being president.

by livy on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:14:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Stylistic differences (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, SeattleLiberal

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.

OK, I guess that's right.  These passages were typewritten, and Ron Paul only writes in crayon.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

by ivorybill on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:22:39 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     REF to Bartlett diary rescue yesterday (6+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

dionys1, vcmvo2, jfadden, Carib and Ting, leonard145b, Wordsinthewind

All of them are racists. What is amazing is to watch the wingers try to rewrite history and claim that they are the party of the minorities.

I think his solution to the Civil War to buy out the slaveowners shows a psychological attachment to the Dred Scott Decision and its premise that African slaves are chattel.  This seems to be an undercurrent to his discussions even as recent as this weekend.  

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Strict Constructionist (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

suswa, vcmvo2, Brooke In Seattle, creeper

The current crop of rabid right wingnut judges the republicans have foisted off on us certainly hasn't disavowed Dred Scott.  The would like to review Griswold though, as that is the beginning of reproductive freedom for the women of this country.

by Wordsinthewind on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:59 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I expect Griswold to end up in front of SCOTUS (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority

and be nibbled away at. Scalia's rant that there is no constitutional guarantee of privacy is the viewpoint of at least 4 justices now, if not more.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Four? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Progressive Moderate

Which? I thought it was 3.

Besides, if privacy isn't in the constitution, maybe it ought to be. We can ammend the thing, after all.

Even supposing that there was no right to privacy, abortion seems seperate enough to me that it really shouldn't rest on a foundation of privacy. That logic was always pretty twisted anyway.

Why do we expect such important things to be decided as whims by courts and legislatures?

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:55:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I believe we can safely count (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, jqb, vcmvo2

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are pretty good bets for buying the no constitutional guarantee of personal privacy.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:11:44 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Ah. (0 / 0)

You may be right. Keep forgetting Thomas, despite the fact that it's been what, going on two decades now? Blah.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:23:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I remember Strom escorting him (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

livy

down the aisle; nothing like Senator for Eternity to sear things into your memory.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:30:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   So You Think Abortion Rights Are Important? (0 / 0)

Have you checked out your candidate's position on reproductive freedom lately?

by creeper on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:09:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   My position on abortion... (0 / 0)

Is likely incomprehensible to you. Just from the fact that you used the term "abortion rights", I can tell this.

No point in discussing it here.

Know that since all candidates are wrong on the issue, and that most are dishonest to the point of being creepy, makes Paul and his honest but incorrect stance an improvement.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:39:27 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Substantive due process (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego

Read the dissent of Hugo Black, a liberal New Dealer and Roosevelt appointee, in dissenting on Griswold. He said that the penumbra argument for a right to privacy that William O.Douglas and Earl Warren followed was a bad way of making a decision, because it kept in line with the conservative activist judges of the early 20th century, who used the substantive due process doctrine in decisions like Lochner.
Substantive due process is a libertarian-conservative's wet dream...and yet our side of the aisle decided to embrace it in the '60s, after we thought it was struck down in the New Deal rulings of 1937.

by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:51:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Judicial question: (0 / 0)

Why is it that conservatives want to overturn Roe and Griswold (ie. the "right to privacy" based on the idea of "substantive due process" within the 5th and 14th Amendment) but want to return to the Lochner era, where conservative SCOTUS justices used the same substantive due process doctrine to strike down state economic regulations? It doesn't make sense in terms of judicial consistency.

by Progressive Moderate on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:48:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     oh NOES!!!!1 (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

KenBee, Mia Dolan

It was teh GHOSTwriters!!

Not the sainted Dr. Paul, M.D.!

Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are teh sux

by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:48:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     and send this link too (0 / 0)

Ron Paul Hates You

thanks phenry!

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:22:27 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Well (16+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

pHunbalanced, suswa, buckhorn okie, SeattleLiberal, Sychotic1, mcfly, vcmvo2, Treg, Philpm, ER Doc, beaukitty, Fredly, Russ Jarmusch, leonard145b, JML9999, journalschism

that was a firmly disgusting piece. The guy is racist to the bone.

Common Sense is not Common

by RustyBrown on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:41:56 AM PST

o     Which is worse? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AnotherObamaGirl

Being a racist or capitalizing on it?  

Follow the money . :~(

by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:47:36 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Racist is (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

novapsyche, AnotherObamaGirl

as racist does.

The Democratic third place finisher in Iowa beat the Republican winner by a 2:1 margin. Of course, this is good for Republicans.

by DelRPCV on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:19:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I have a big problem with Hillary's racist (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Geotpf, Sychotic1, CeciNestPasLeBlog, leonard145b, AnotherObamaGirl, NoMoreNicksLeft, The Dead Man

campaign tactics as well. Ron Paul is right 50% of the time and horrably worng the other half of the time.

Obama: what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable.

by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:42:38 AM PST

o     evidence, please? (15+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Delaware Dem, pHunbalanced, jqb, phenry, buckhorn okie, Miss Blue, milton333, Progressive Moderate, Treg, jct, Philpm, lev36, PhantomFly, kipzoo, malibu1964

I'm not aware of any racist campaign tactics used by the Clinton campaign. Can you provide a link explaining what is she's done? (This is a genuine request; I don't mean to sound snarky).

As for Paul, the only issue that I think he's right on is Iraq. Everything else the man says is batshit crazy.

by pine on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:45:52 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   how about these? (0 / 0)

http://sonic.net/...

So that makes her both a foul mouthed racist and anti-Semite.

by nakedcomputerguy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:06:51 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   NewsMax? (19+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

akr nyc, decembersue, jqb, phenry, suswa, Frederick Clarkson, badlands, milton333, vcmvo2, jct, debedb, Philpm, virgomusic, ER Doc, AmericanRiverCanyon, PhantomFly, CeciNestPasLeBlog, kipzoo, malibu1964

You're citing NewsMax as a reliable source? (That's where almost all of the particularly offensive quotes in that link are sourced to.)  You've got to be fucking kidding me.  

by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:39 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Just because you say something... (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, suswa, Geotpf, milton333, vcmvo2, Carib and Ting, malibu1964

...doesn't make it so.  

FACT:  Hillary has a greater percentage of paid campaign African-American staffers (nearly 20%) than Obama does.  

FACT:  Hillary has far more minorities and women working for her than any other campaign.

FACT:  Obama isn't for Universal Health Care and UHC would benefit minorities far more than the "average" white middle-class American.

by kipzoo on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:42:01 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yeah (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, novapsyche, creeper, NoMoreNicksLeft

....and George Bush had more Black staff than Bill Clinton.

What are you saying? Only Republicans have Black tokens ?

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:18:17 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   FACT: (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, AnotherObamaGirl

people who use 'FACT:' to preface their claims sound desperate to establish them as truth.

scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92

by el zilcho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:30:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Do you have any reason to think they aren't true (0 / 0)

or are you just desperate to blow hot air?

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:53:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I'm not desperate. (0 / 0)

What is YOUR point?  What would you like me to do?  Do you believe that these facts aren't true?  What are you trying to say?  Do you think I'm blowing hot air?  I'm not.  I'm just trying to share information.

Are Obama supporters scared of facts?  By cutting me down and dismissing me entirely, does that make these facts any less true?  

What are you trying to say el zilcho?  Oh wait, I guess el zilcho means nothing and so you don't need to say anything.  I forget, Obama supporters don't need facts, are perfectly fine when their candidate goes negative, can't handle the scrutiny their candidate takes from the media or people who don't support them.  Saying nothing is appropriate for you Mr. Zero.  For there is nothing to say when you are wrong.

by kipzoo on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:53:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   i'm not an obama supporter (0 / 0)

but i dont have to be to notice that hillary as a candidate is the gravest threat to a democratic presidential victory in '08; that much is certain to anyone who has ever talked to a republican about her.  she will turn their discontentment and complacence to bile and a motivation to 'stop her'.

on top of that, she's an insipid and craven figure to most of the progressive movement.  she kowtows and compromises, makes poor decisions calculated to make her look 'tough'.  she's a menace, and, as i said, our biggest liability this election season.

that said, my comment was about none of this.  the 'FACT:' device is annoying and counterproductive.  by so clumsily framing your assertions, you only detract from them.  if you feel like you need to dress up your claims, try citing some sources next time.

scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92

by el zilcho on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:18:05 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   This guy is interesting (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

vcmvo2

as the author of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

While he claims to be nonpartisan, it appears he has some sort of Hilary fixation. I assume the Wiki bio is his own contribution or sourced to him at least in part.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:15 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yup (0 / 0)

I assume the Wiki bio is his own contribution or sourced to him at least in part.

Confirmed on the article's discussion page.

--Goobergunch

by Goobergunch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:43:12 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   How about "you're a fucking troll"? n/t (0 / 0)

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:51:11 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   PATRIOT Act, DrugWar, REAL-ID (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

dkmich, Dr Seuss, nakedcomputerguy, oibme, chrismatthews

Okay, I'm done.

Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
Court certified Marijuana Expert

by ben masel on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:09:13 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   It's all spin and lies (0 / 0)

In the long run, this kind of negative low life tactic, especially since it is getting support from the Hillary hating sexist Chris Matthews, will hurt the Obama campaign.

by Jjc2006 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:25:08 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Seems like a Rove thing to me. (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

vcmvo2

Doing all the race-baiting on Obama and making it look like Clinton did it, thereby hurting two top Democrats at the same time.

Bet on it, the Republicans are behind it. It smells of Republican all the way through.

"...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:43 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Only that issue? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

wilderness voice

War on drugs?

Our economy is seriously screwed?

Repeal the patriot act?

Lift sanctions to Cuba and Iran, and send diplomats there?

The state's attempts to enact meaningful legislation shouldn't be thwarted by the federal government, as in the EPA thing here just recently?

He's right on more than one issue.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:02:17 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Great campaign slogan (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

TrueBlueMajority, jqb

"Vote for Ron Paul! He's right on more than one issue!"

-3.12, -5.90

by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:14:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Not *even* the same thing. (18+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

pine, taylormattd, Delaware Dem, pHunbalanced, jqb, phenry, buckhorn okie, MadEye, milton333, DH from MD, vcmvo2, Treg, Red Bean, Philpm, ChapiNation386, DemocraticLuntz, leonard145b, A Person

Her campaign hasn't said anything even remotely close to what Paul has said.  She hasn't attracted a loud, solid neo-Nazi fanbase.  VNN, Stormfront et al. aren't encouraging their freaks to donate to her.


According to Mike Huckabee, I'm a porn queen.

by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:46:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Of course not, (0 / 0)

she's much too good of a politician for that . . .

by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:30:47 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yeh... (0 / 0)

And the places that are supposedly exposing this rabid stormfront fanbase, are the same places Daily Kos rants against at all other times.

Is it not possible that Giuliani or Romney isn't promising a favor or two, to torpedo Paul?

Seriously, if you're a neonazi with an ounce of sense, and you'd like Ron Paul to be in office, would you annouce it, or keep quiet so as to not embarrass him?

They're evil little subhumans, not stupid little subhumans. They seem to be doing the exact opposite of what is in their best interest, and not one of their own is complaining at them to shut up.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:06:32 PM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Except... (20+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, DelRPCV, pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, AdmiralNaismith, jqb, phenry, Plutonium Page, Arlingtonian, Geotpf, buckhorn okie, MadEye, milton333, PerfectStormer, vcmvo2, Philpm, ChapiNation386, DemocraticLuntz, A Person, malibu1964

...Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, did not say that 95% of black people were criminals.

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18)

by DH from MD on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:47:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   no but she infered Obama (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Geotpf, CeciNestPasLeBlog, AnotherObamaGirl, Libertaria

can not be president because he is a "drug dealer". the morning after Shaheens comments she refused to say Obama's teen years shouldn't be held against him and said her strong points were that she was vetted and no surprises. In the context of Shaheen's remarks it's playing the race card. Do i think Hillary is a racist? no but she's willing to play to percieved racism to win. Paul is simply a nutcase who like a broken clock is right about some things.

Obama: what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable.

by nevadadem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:53:55 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   It's a shitty campaign tactic, sure (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, pHunbalanced, jqb, MadEye, PerfectStormer

That's not in dispute.  But it's not even close to Ron Paul's explicit endorsement of the StormFront position on minority Americans.

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. -- T. Paine (-6.25, -7.18)

by DH from MD on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:57:51 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Who are you to wage (11+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

nevadadem, Jim P, dus7, novapsyche, jds1978, CeciNestPasLeBlog, wilderness voice, leonard145b, Wordsinthewind, NeeshRN, Libertaria

what is and is not offensive and racist to Blacks? I will have you know I see it all the same.

1 Romney's Racist Book of Mormon and the lie about marching with Dr. King in an effort to cover it up.

2 Ron Paul's Racist Ideas and his distorted and ignorant attitude towards Blacks and Jews

3 The Clinton Campaigns Racist Tactics using Black stereotypes about cocaine , sending e-mails suggesting he's a radical Manchurian Muslim , ect. ect.a

I and many other African Americans see it ll the same. Who are you guys to dictate to us what is and is not to be taken as racist?

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:07:08 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Who's dictating? (11+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

decembersue, AaronInSanDiego, jqb, phenry, milton333, dkmich, vcmvo2, zinger99, Red Bean, CeciNestPasLeBlog, A Person

Some people just have a different opinion than you do.  It happens, you know.

by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:14:34 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Yep (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

leonard145b

....and that opinion will be following us into the voting booth. Keep playing dumb.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:36:30 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   And your point is? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

All races have racists, and we all take our opinions into the voting booth with us.  

Follow the money . :~(

by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:01:11 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   That's nothing new (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

leonard145b

But when they campaign on it, it will be called out.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:11:07 AM PST

[ Parent ]

·          I don't mean to give you a hard time. (0 / 0)

I just don't think you should assume that all racism is as commonly perceived.

Follow the money . :~(

by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:46:01 AM PST

[ Parent ]

o     Neither should you (0 / 0)

...or I should say, the ones who are dictating what is and is not considered racist and offensive to Blacks.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:01 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I seriously don't understand (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, jqb, phenry, vcmvo2, zinger99

how it is that when one person says he thinks something is not racist, and you, AOG, think otherwise, it is the former who is "dictating" to you but not vice-versa.  Is it that only one opinion on these matters is allowed to be honestly held, and the other is per se illegitimate?

by Glenn in NYC on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:57:35 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   She seems to think that her blackness gives her (0 / 0)

authority on what is racist.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:58:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Are you one Black, or all Blacks? (0 / 0)

Your arrogance is astounding.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:00:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   So, if a group of Afro Americans claim the sun (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, phenry, Bronxist, zinger99

rising in the east is "racist" you are the sole authority?  

Get real. Only in your mind does that exclusive right exist.

Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me)

by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:19:01 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   To The Targets/Victims, What's The Difference? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AnotherObamaGirl

Be it: Paul's Campaign, Romney's, Paul's, Tancredo's, what's the impact on the targets? Do you know?  If not, maybe it's you who are claiming "sole authority."

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:12 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Me claiming "sole authority"? No, but (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb

I completely reject the notion that real or self proclaimed "victims" are the only definers of what is or is not racist. That is entirely bogus.

Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me)

by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   OMG (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

entlord1, leonard145b

There were so many things sick about that comment, I don't know where to begin. Shameful.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:07:54 AM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Apparently, They Really Hold The Opinion (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AnotherObamaGirl

that Racism is different, because there's a D, after your name.  And, their abject hostility and latent violence when you even mention that Racism even exists, is palpable.  This is sick!

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:56 AM PST

[ Parent ]

·          So, go somewhere else with this. (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego, darrelplant, jqb, phenry, zinger99

Certain claimants to the Christian faith feel themselves victims to the secular world. They claim there is a war against them. They claim, while pushing their cause for public prayer and non-science as science that everyone else is anti Christian. As self proclaimed victims of a secular war on Christianity everyone else has to just accept that without argument because they are "the victims" in this scenario? Nonsense!

So, in your mind, certain people are racist. That is valid in your mind. It may have no more independent basis than the paranoid claims of someone that the world is against them.

If you want others to reach the same conclusion, if you want to form a political movement to fight what you think to be racist or a war against your views you have to make reasonable arguments and present proofs that others can accept and rally to for the cause. That is where it gets beyond a lonely and perhaps erroneous or even pathological internal conclusion.

Bluntly, your silly Kramer response and the one above indicate to my mind that you are probably too wrapped up in your own views to progress. Then, that may just be my erroneous conclusion in my own mind--even if I do have two pieces of evidence.

If I recall you practically lumped one of the leading Democratic candidates with Ron Paul on racism. Can you make a case for that that stands up to argument? Your proclamation it is so reaches yourself and maybe a few like minded others. Proclaiming yourself the sole judge of that is a dead end even if you draft in substantial numbers of a racial minority. That is the road to permanent minority status politically as well.

Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me)

by pelagicray on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:02:11 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Guess The "Real Or Self Proclaimed Victims," (0 / 0)

will just wait on you to verify the authenticity of Racism.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

by leonard145b on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:09:40 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Afro Americans ? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

leonard145b

Okay Kramer

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:14 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   African Americans are not monolithic (5+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV, jqb, milton333, vcmvo2, AnotherObamaGirl

which means there is a spectrum of political beliefs out there. It just seems the crucible of shared experience may cause there to seem to be more uniformity than there may actually be. At any rate, Hilary is no worse than the average person of her background one way or the other.

For those who are watching the winger blogs, Stormfront and other propaganda is being brought to the fore through attacks on the character of MLK and attempts to portray Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as anti-Semitic. It muddies the water for the Roveniks and allows them to still service their base.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:59:17 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   You Are Right (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

leonard145b, NeeshRN

We are not monolithic on all things. But Racism is something we all take very seriously whether we are on the far right or the extreme left.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:09:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I don't know; I have doubts about Creflo Dollar (0 / 0)

but then I remember when Reverend Ike was the icon for the weekly numbers too. There are always a few people anywhere working a scam.  

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:39:48 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I'll give you 99% but I don't think Clarence (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

novapsyche, AnotherObamaGirl, NeeshRN

Thomas takes racism 'very seriously'. Of course you only went to the 'far right' and Clarance is probably much further to the right than that.

There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:37:10 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Clarence grew up not too far from here (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

NeeshRN

and profited from a system he now disavows. If he had had any integrity he would have declined the SCOTUS nomination. Or as some say, "Tom is as Tom does"

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:50:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I'm in my later years, (0 / 0)

and with the narrowing social circle time enforces on me, I've lost most all my ties to living African Americans. So I would be extremely grateful if you could read this comment I made in this diary and offer your take on this, or ideas about how Afro-American communities feel on the topic.

Thank you.

Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

by Jim P on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:25:36 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Equivalency (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, jqb, pelagicray

Drawing an equivalency between Ron Paul for saying that "95% of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and Hillary Clinton for having a mid-level campaign surrogate who made a ridiculous but fleeting insinuation about Barack Obama's drug use is something that a lot of people can, and should, find deeply offensive, regardless of race.

May God help me resist the temptation to hold Obama's supporters against him.

by phenry on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Heh. (0 / 0)

A "mid-level campaign surrogate" doesn't do things like that on their own. They're chosen as expendable in case things go south, and this one did.

I'm sure that everyone is careful to make sure she's out of the room whenever anything like that is discussed.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:26:05 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Being black doesn't mean YOU can dictate it (0 / 0)

else we would all have to accept the views of Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, et. al.

by jqb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:57:35 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   obama could have been white (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Miss Blue, milton333

admitted drug use is never a good thing, regardless of when it was.  

You may recall some of us trotted that out against Bush too.  It didn't have anything to do about Bush's race....  I'm 100% certain that she'd have taken the same approach if it'd been Edwards instead.

That's not racist.  Lowball politics perhaps, but not racists.

And yes, I realize I'm pissing in the wind on this one.    Reason never prevails when race is mentioned.

Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:03:45 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Methinks we used drug use (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

ivorybill

against Bush because of the hyprocrisy.

Not because we're against drug use per se (not that we're for it either, of course . . . .standard disclaimer for the lurking DEA agents)

by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:20 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Comparing Obama's drug use to Bush's is (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, badlands, vcmvo2, ivorybill, bruised toes, AnotherObamaGirl

disingenuous.  Obama confirmed that he fooled around with drugs when he was younger.  Bush was a regular cocaine user and alcoholic and says that he stopped using when he was 40.  

I like Obama and I despise Bush but there is a difference here.

'how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?' Bob Dylan

by St Louis Woman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:38:05 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Sure, but my point is about Obamistas' racism (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, phenry

there's a difference.  But my point is that there's nothing racist about pointing out that admitted drug use is going to be used against you, whether you are black or white or what have you.

I mostly see this "Clinton is racist" meme as a cheap trick by Obama supporters trying to play a race card against Clinton because she's white rather than reflecting any real prejudice on Clinton's part.  The fact that THIS is what's trotted out just shows how crappy the whole affair is.  If it happens against a white person it's politics.  If it happens against a black person it's racism.  I'd say that's pretty abhorrent a claim to try to raise against Clinton and it's far dirtier pool than almost anything Clinton has done.

Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:55:40 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Let he without stoning cast the first sin (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

vcmvo2, AnotherObamaGirl

Who among the Boomer and later generations did not inhale? This easy hypocrisy becomes tiring after a while. Smoking a doobie and growing 100 acres of weed are not the same.  Experimenting with drugs for a year is not the same thing as decades of hardcore alcohol and drug abuse.  

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:41 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Who among...? Feingold. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

Miss Blue, AnotherObamaGirl

I was in every smokefilled room in Sellery hall freshman year, and he wasn't.

Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
Court certified Marijuana Expert

by ben masel on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:26:02 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   So he had a solitary reefer (0 / 0)

not every doper was a sharer which is why I think the GOP inhaled as much as any Democrat in those days. (and even if not, the smoke from rooms down the hall would have been sufficient)

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:42:04 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   BULL ! (0 / 0)

I mostly see this "Clinton is racist" meme as a cheap trick by Obama supporters trying to play a race card against Clinton because she's white rather than reflecting any real prejudice on Clinton's part.

Blacks have been called out for using racism tactics as well.

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REP FORD

was called out by the Black Community for his stupid remarks as well. So were other members of the Black Community like Arthur Davis and Jessie Jackson ( AN OBAMA SUPPORTER) for saying stupid crap about Obamas race.

Keep playing dumb.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:06:03 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I see. Ford's a racist too? (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

phenry

Got some links?  (I'm curious about what Jackson and Ford said.)  This has got to be the first time I'm aware of that anyone has the nerve to call Jackson a racist.  Maybe that's a hint that perhaps the charge won't stick.

I still stand by the notion that bringing up the drug use issue is NOWHERE near racism.  Try encountering some real racism and you'll recognize the difference immediately.

Neither is asking the legitimate question of whether a black man can win racist (it merely ponders the state of racism in the country as a whole), nor is asking whether a woman can win sexist, nor is asking whether a   philanderer can win (that other Clinton.  See 1996) nor whether asking whether a mormon can win anti mormon, or whether a non-establishment candidate necessarily anti-non-establishment.  ALL of these are merely questions about the political landscape f the US and require no racial (or other) animus to raise it. The fact that people try to use this to bring accusations of racism suggests the work of those who are accustomed to seeing racist where ever they see someone with white skin.  I despise such behavior, much as I despise genuine racism of any other kind.

For the record, I"m not a fan of either Obama or Clinton as both are both too conservative for me.  

Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:56:55 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Lame (0 / 0)

That's not gonna work.You two are no fools. You don't have to be a racist to use racism to defeat a candidate. If you don't know what was said by these people as much attention as it got in the Media, then you truly are clueless.

"I guess it's too much to ask but, you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families." ~ Barack Obama on OG Videos

by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:50:17 PM PST

[ Parent ]

·          Fair enough... (0 / 0)

But that still leaves the fact that pointing out that admitted drug use is a problem for candidates for public office isn't a racist attack.  ANY candidate, regardless of race, who has admitted using drugs i the past is going to see it used in the campaign by opponents.  If he admitted to being an atheist, it'd be a problem too.  Doesn't make it a racists attack to point out that it'd be a problem.

And no, I don't scour the press every day so I missed what Ford said.  I've been in law school, so I don't follow the press for weeks at a time.  My failing I know.  I'll take your word that he did.  I only ask for links because I"m genuinely cuirious, but I can google just as well as you can.  No point making you do the work.

Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

by Guinho on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:03:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   If you read Robert Ford's entire statement (0 / 0)

what he says is not directed against Obama but stating a fact of life; the race card will be played against him. I know Robert Ford slightly and to characterize him as racist is incorrect.
He spoke what he perceived as a self evident truth but failed to couch it sufficiently well for it to be clear what he meant.

by entlord1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:19:42 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Oh give me a break. (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

darrelplant, novapsyche

Would you actually expect Obama to go beyond "he fooled around".  Christ, Clinton wouldn't even admit he inhaled.

Follow the money . :~(

by dkmich on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:03:28 AM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I think both Bush and Obama are scum... (0+ / 1-)

Trollrated by:

taylormattd

It's ok to use drugs and get away with it, when you belong to the elites.

You or me, we'd have our lives ruined over it. They get a free pass.

Then again, Obama might be ok... maybe when/if he gets into office, he secretly plans on gutting the DEA, and refusing to enforce drug law. But he certainly hasn't let on, if that's the plan.

by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:13:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   I've known plaenty of people who've used a small (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

AaronInSanDiego

amount of drugs and not had 'their lives ruined' by it. The year I graduated High School over 50% of High School Seniors had admitted to smoking Marijuana at least once. I've even known people who when stopped with drugs the police just dumped the drugs on the ground. Maybe it's different here in California, but I think a lot of places are like that.

There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

by Sacramento Dem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:46:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   Obama is scum? (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

taylormattd, AaronInSanDiego

What the hell does this even mean? You're really trying to muddy the waters here. Making any kind of equivalence between Obama and Bush is really beyond absurd.

False equivalence- you sound just like a repub.

Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference-JFK

by vcmvo2 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:16:49 PM PST

[ Parent ]

§   That is a complet and utter lie (0 / 0)

she infered Obama can not be president because he is a "drug dealer

Saying Hillary Clinton said that is a lie.  Her campaign ought to claim libel for such out and out lies.   You are doing a disservice to Obama for continue to push such a sick lie.