Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Stormfront: Ron Paul's Lesser Known Fanbase

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 14, 2012, 1:29 p.m. EST by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Not that I'm a huge Paul fan (although I think his views on military overreach have merit), but a person cannot be judged on the basis that some wacko group may agree with him on some points. I mean, this gives kooks like the douche bags in stormfront a lot of power doesn't it? All they have to do is agree with someone they don't like .... to guarantee no one else will like them. I'm not saying that's what's happening in this case, but it would give kooks significant power if we began to judge people in this way.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Paul has refuse to distance himself from Stormfront (and other White Power groups). When pressed about why he wouldn't disavow his connection to them, he responded that he was hoping to teach them instead of alienate them.

That's about as disingenuous as it gets.

But, equally damning, these groups are attracted to him because they understand how Libertarianism itself, based exclusively on the overriding "sanctity" of private property would lead to institutional racism, supported by law. Banks could once again redline mortgages, restaurants and hotels could once again refuse to serve minorities, private schools could legally be White only, and so on.

Part of the reason Paul won't disavow these groups is because disavowing them would be disavowing fundamentals of Libertarianism itself.

[-] 5 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I'm not a sociologist, but I tend to think the MO of the average white supremacist is uneducated, typically young (although certainly not exclusively young), and uneducated (it's worth stating twice). So on that basis, "teaching" them is not a terrible idea. I mean, we already alienate these people as a society, yet they haven't gone away.

Nonetheless, I agree with your objections to libertarian philosophy, although I'm not sure if we can say that our society would once again become racist purely by caveat of deregulation (not that I support deregulation, quite the opposite, but I'm not sure if "racism" would necessarily be an outcome of deregulation, although maybe it would, and I don't want to find out)?

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Racism has never completely gone away. I'm not talking about individual bigotry (though plenty of that exists, too) but institutional racism embedded in our very systems. Examples are too numerous to mention, but if you're curious, there are plenty of books out there to look through. (It plays out most obviously and dramatically in education. Jonathan Kozol's outstanding book "Savage Inequalities" documents it very well.)

These institutional forms of racism would not only be immune from change under Libertarianism, they would expand and become officially, legally entrenched.

As to your contention that Paul doesn't distance himself from his race-hate group supporters because he is sincere about wanting to teach them,

Bullshit.

He wants their votes. And he understands full well that not supporting them would mean not supporting core aspects of Libertarianism, which, in our society, always works to support racism.

You don't "teach" nazis if you oppose them. You simply oppose them. At the very least, when running for president, you say you don't agree with them. He has not.

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I'm actually not trying to speculate about what Ron Paul's true inner motives are ... he could very well be a closet racist for all I know. And yes, it is true that opposing people like Nazi's is crucial (so much is obvious), but we're not really talking about an emerging Nazi party that has any remote chance of seizing political power (this isn't 1930's Germany), we're talking about seriously misguided and uneducated people (who are probably expressing a frustration that is rooted in disenfranchisement). I mean, just because they're white, doesn't mean they can't be poor and uneducated.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

It doesn't matter in the least whether the groups are small or not. Evil is evil, and if one is opposed to it, one says so in uncertain terms. He has not, even when pressed to. That speaks volumes.

[-] -1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

I acknowledge that guilt by association is a logical fallacy. But it's more than that. He has endorsed racist and anti-gay views. Read the post, then comment. For assistance, here's the last paragraph of the post:

Either way? Ron the Paul ain't a nice old guy. But he's the right kind of not-nice old guy that the fascist white supremacists really like, apparently. I wonder how many of Paul's growing legion of misguided collegiate fanboys are aware of this stuff. Just because someone endorses your candidacy, it doesn't follow that you share their beliefs--that's fallacious reasoning. However, it does raise questions about the validity--and sanity--of your views if they're avidly shared by lizard-brained people who clearly have enlarged amydalae.

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

Then why did Ron Paul vote NO on legislation that would have defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman? He had the chance to support bigoted legislation and he voted NO on it.

He also has spoken out many times about how he thinks the war on drugs is abused to imprison black people.

If corporatism/fascism loves him so much, then why aint the banks and big business backing him like they're backing Romney?

I only support Ron Paul because of the views he shares with Dennis Kucinich and his views on these wars that kill innocent people and waste trillions of dollars. I disagree with him on several issues but I think the wars need to stop and that is the most important issue on hand for me in the upcoming election.

A lot of lizard brained people support the wars and killing all those innocent people. So by the last sentence of the post, this means that Obama agrees with everything the lizard brains say since they both support the wars. Not really how it works.

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Trevor: You wrote: "Then why did Ron Paul vote NO on legislation that would have defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman? He had the chance to support bigoted legislation and he voted NO on it."

Answer: He voted no on it because marriage does not and SHOULD NOT be defined by the Federal Government. Ron Paul believes that two individuals, regardless of whether they are a "man and woman", should have the freedom to create a legal contract that "brings them together".

[-] -2 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Yeah, but here's the thing: the guy is racist. Simply saying that he's not by pointing out the war on drugs = war on minorities means nothing. By that logic, Newt Gingrich is pro-OWS because he rails against Romney's ill-gotten wealth.

I agree with him on war. But that's pretty much it (perhaps fixing the fed). But eliminating the IRS. Eliminating taxes? Having states "take care of everything"? Really? States are dirt poor. His world is one of a true corportocracy, because he'd basically eliminate all regulations. And the people in African countries who need our help? Screw them under Ron Paul's new world order.

As for being a racist, lots of RP supporters here keep defending him on his newsletters. Well, no more. The truth is out there:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html

He read and approved his own racist views. Period.

[-] -2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Right, and I agree. In many ways he's a fairly garden variety, conservative douche bag (which is the main reason why I couldn't support someone like Ron Paul). He has a few good ideas, but those same good ideas also exist on our side of the fence.

[-] -1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Definitely right. As much as I disagree with him on many points (he has been an avid anti-immigrant commentator), Glenn Greenwald points out the reality: it's two columns of pros and cons.

For RP:

Pros: Drugs, War. That's pretty much it. Cons: Free market cum corporatocracy without any regulations. Taxes eliminated. Banks completely deregulated. Food safety--non-existent. Health care? Have a bake sale! On and on...

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

The way I see it is some regulation is needed e.g. Glass Steagall, derivatives regulation, Clean Air/Water Acts, etc. Programs like Medicare and Social Security are very good (and well run even through they're very big programs). However, merely by caveat of being labeled "education" or "healthcare" .. doesn't automatically make something meritorious.

I think it may be true that social democracy is much easier to run in a smaller society (like Scandinavia), versus a giant country like the United States. I don't buy into the idea that being a homogeneous society makes it any easier, I think it's just a matter of sheer size, and the inherent inefficiency of centralized bureaucracy in a large nation.

It's interesting to note that many of the problems we're experiencing today were discussed and recognized by thinkers like Adam Smith, whose writings are perhaps the most often misused in our public dialogue. As of late I'm finding the anarchist intellectual tradition very compelling. It may not be the best word to promote ideas like participatory democracy, more collaborative workplaces, and so on, but the underlying ideas are excellent. Some (maybe most) aspects of social democracy are good, even in the context of a large nation, but without sufficient levels of public participation in our democracy, public programs are inevitably co-oped by moneyed special interests (whether they be social programs, military programs, our penal system, or whatever), and I think this is particularly true in a large nation.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Excellent points, all. I am compelled, at least in part, by countries like Finland, which although they run high deficits, have some of the happiest, well cared for, and educated people on the planet. I'll look into some of your references, but ultimately, I think it's a cultural mindset, poor education systems, and media manipulation that keep America less than enlightened re the common weal and participation in the political process.

do you have a blog? here's mine: http://www.groobiecat.blogspot.com

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Yes it's true, he's not just a bigot, he's a full blown racist.

I guess anonymous, didn't care fore being co-opted by Mr. Ps supporters.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39862_Anonymous_Hacks_White_Supremacist_Site_Finds_Direct_Links_to_Ron_Paul

[-] 1 points by Seriously090 (10) 12 years ago

Candidates do not have time to go through every campaign donor to decide if the person is upstanding. That would be ludicrous. Subsequently, each candidate no doubt receives money from unsavory characters. Does that mean the candidate aligns themselves with that type of person or group? Absolutely not.

The difference-- the news media only reports on crap like hookers donating when it relates to Ron Paul.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

No. Wrong. This was not just "any" campaign donor--this was a very high profile donor who is well known as a white supremacist. It was in the news. He was asked about it. His spokesperson was asked about it. It wasn't "buried" in a pile of donations. It was very public at the time (google it). Anything else is just apologist nonsense. He legitimized the organization--which, if you've never visited Stormfront's web site, you should do, because it's pretty freakin' scary.

You say he's not aligning himself with the group but accepting the donation legitimizes them--that's the point. It's not that he is a member of stormfront or agrees with everything they believe in. BUT, he does share one believe that they share as well: shop owners should be allowed to turn away black people if they want. He's on the record saying as much. That's not a way to snipe, that's just a simple fact.

It is up to everyone to make of it what they will. I believe it means he's endorsing racist--de facto--whether he knows or acknowledges it or not.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 12 years ago

I am an individual. I'm not a color, not race and not a religion. I am an individual. Neither am I a gender, or an age, or a sexuality.

I am not a region, a number, or a political party. I am an individual, I want a candidate who doesn't see me as a group, a demographic, or a voting block. I will stand with the candidate who sees me as an individual, and who believes in my right to live my life, the way I want to live it, as long as I never interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

If a candidate in fact believes in me, being able to make my own decisions, about my life, well that makes me believe in him. I am not a drug addict, I am not crazy, I'm not uneducated, I am not uninformed, and I do not blindly or carelessly support any candidate. I am an individual, and in this next election, this individual will stand up for No One, unless they stand up for me.


[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Okay, I hear you. As an individual, however, you also rely on groups of other people, and Ron Paul's "policies" have nothing to say about that simple, but very real truth. Think about that...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

BONUS POINTS: A former Ron Paul staffer named Eric Dondero, who worked closely with the Texas congressman and presidential candidate over the course of 15 years, has issued a statement in which he both defends his old boss from charges of racism and anti-Semitism and reveals damning new details about about the "sheer lunacy of [Paul's] foreign policy views".

First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business."

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-aide-says-ron-paul-911-truther-isolationist-who-thinks-us-shouldnt-have-fought-hitler_614883.html)

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 12 years ago

Many people here oppose the wars and so does the white nationalist group that supports ron paul. Here's their leader saying so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2zYAaJeuA

I think the question of rather ron paul is racist or not, is no longer worth arguing. By now everyone has been able to see the evidence both for and against him being racist and their minds are already made up.

For those who do think he is racist: Is there anything that would 100% convince you that he isn't racist?

Something he could do or say? Something anyone else could do or say? Any piece of evidence?

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

No. But this is also very damning:

Ron Paul is has knowingly taken a donation from the head of Stormfront: "WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Republican presidenti­al hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacis­t, and the Texas congressma­n doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.­" (source: http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/22­331091/ns/­politics-d­ecision_08­/t/paul-ke­eps-donati­on-white-s­upremacist­/#.TxLUGGO­XTPo)

Look, war bad--agreed. Very much so. But that's the extent of my agreement with RP--or the Stormfront neo-nazis. But the reason people want this issue to "go away" and state that it's "old" is that it hurts RP. But it should. He has stated he would be against the Civil Rights Act--because it places restrictions on merchants determining whether black people can be served.

I'm sorry, but that's crazy land. You guys need to know that. It's not nothing--it's something.

But this is just one area where I aggressively disagree with the good doctor. Eliminate the IRS and taxes. Really. Let's do that! Because then, um, we'd have, what, voluntary taxation provided from corporations?

It's not 1900. It will never again be 1900. The US government--yes, it's flawed, perhaps even deeply--has been integral to the success story that is the United States. How do you think the Internet got started? It wasn't private enterprise. It was US government research. And the fed? The fed isn't the source of all our problems--it's become a mantra, but it's really not the bain of US existence. Intolerance is. Fear of difference is. The inability to rise above politics is and cooperate with one another is. --And dude, taking a donation from Stormfront is probably how I should have led off this post. It's truly damning.

We don't have to agree, but this is not the reLOVEution that will fix the United States.

[-] 2 points by theshadowranger (20) 12 years ago

I'm black and I agree that private establishments should be allowed to refuse service. I don't want to give my money to racist. All ron paul is really talking about is allowing them to be honest about it right from the start.

The argument is pointless anyway because if a racist doesn't want to serve me, he can just be rude to me when I come in. If I go into a restaurant that the owner hurls racial slurs at me, I'll leave. There is no law against him being a rude and obnoxious jerk to me. And if I still give him my money afterwards, I'm the bigger idiot.

I honestly can't think of anything that I want so much that I would knowingly buy it from a racist.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Read this and tell me you feel the same way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html

If it were up to RP, you wouldn't be able to shopt anywhere a store owner didn't want you to shop. It's not about rude, dude, it's about preventing you from coming into the establishment in the first place.

The whole point of the civil rights movement was to eliminate discrimination--not give people the right to determine what discrimination is on a store by store basis. That would be a reversion to Jim Crow. Here's my blog post on the subject:

http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/01/im-sorry-but-ron-paul-isnt-just.html

The logic just isn't there.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 12 years ago

You still didn't answer my point. I don't want to give my money to a racist. That's what is important to me. I don't want to go into a store or restaurant owned by a racist. That's why the argument is pointless. If I know the guy is racist, I won't want to go in. It doesn't matter if he can't refuse me service. The 1st amendment says he can put a sign on the door that says "We hate n*ggers"

NO matter what you do the racist wins because either he keeps the me out of his store like he wants to or he takes my money and still calls me n*gger.

So really your argument is: If for reason I'm stupid enough to want to give my money to a racist, I should be legally allowed to"

I want the law that reduces my chances of giving my hard earned money to a racist.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

No. It's not about you going into a store. It's about the work--and blood--offered up by black people in this country to fight for the right of every American regardless of race, creed, or color to enter into any establishment or use any service that they want.

It's not about knowing whether someone is racist--that's not the point at all. it's about preventing people from engaging in overt racism and denying services to people based on race. Most people won't put up a sign like that--but then, most racism isn't that overt, either. It's often much more subtle and institutional.

In this case, it's about society--not the individual experience. And thank god for it. MLK knew that the Jim Crow laws--and "right to private property clauses"--had to be overturned. Some things are more important than so-called private property. But RP--and Stormfront--would have us believe otherwise...

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 12 years ago

Again you're still proving that this argument is pointless. Why does it matter if I can or can't give my money to a racist. It's better to allow them to be open and honest about their ignorance. That we all know who the bad people are. And we can give our money to those who are NOT ignorant racist. I'm black and I want every person who hates black people to be open and honest about it so I know not to associate with them or GIVE THEM MY MONEY.

No law can change what is in a persons heart.

You're arguing that I should have the right to give my money to a racist if I'm dumb enough to do so.

I'm arguing that the racist should have the right to refuse my money.

I want to give my money to people who aren't racist.

Either way the racist wins. Either he gets to refuse me OR he gets my money.

Not allowing PRIVATE establishments to refuse service helps the racist because they are making more money.

Allowing them to refuse service HURTS them because it exposes them as racist and all decent people like you and me and RP will not give them our money.

If you know the owner is racist then you won't give him business. If you don't know then you will.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

"No law can change what is in a persons heart."

Not true. But laws changed how minorities are to be treated. That's the point. You don't like the Civil Rights Act, apparently, or really understand what MLK was about. As it turns out, he believed you could change what's in peoples' hearts by intermingling the races and proving to each other that the color of skin isn't important. He was right.

Anyway, good luck with Ron Paul. His segregationist view of the world will, thankfully, not ever come to pass...

[-] 1 points by theshadowranger (20) 12 years ago

I didn't say that I didn't like the civil rights act. Neither did Ron Paul. He disagreed with 1 part of it. I disagree with the same part.

I don't believe that the government can discriminate, I don't believe that public property can be discriminatory. RP and I are talking solely about PRIVATE property and privately funded establishments. IF you get even 1 penny of government funding then YOU DO NOT have the right to refuse entry or service. Everyone should be allowed in PUBLIC schools, Everyone get's to use the PUBLIC park. Those things are funded by the tax payers money. We all pay taxes so we all get to use them.

I also agree that SOME peoples minds can be changed. In the mean time how much of my money will I be giving to racist while the change is occurring.

Again you've haven't addressed my 2 main points.

  1. That part of the law doesn't matter. All the racist has to do is call me nigger when I enter his establishment and I will leave on my own. He doesn't have to refuse me service, he can just treat me like shit until I leave on my own. OR I can still give him money after he calls me nigger. which means he treated my like shit and got my money anyway. Either way, he wins.

  2. What stops me from giving my money to a racist?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

Here is how it works with the RonPaul is a racist crowd.

You heard there was a news letter.

You want to believe he is a racist.

You start with the supposition that he is a racist.

You look for more evidence that he is.

You ignore 50 years of personal behavior.

You ignore that he provided medical services and even delivered hundreds of babies for poor Blacks and Hispanics for free.

You ignore that he supported black candidates.

You ignore the comments of the NAACP president who knows RonPaul http://tinyurl.com/7l9c4ey

This is not the definition of racist that I learned but if all these things mean RonPaul is a racist then we definitely need more racists!

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html

Check and mate. The dude read his newsletters and approved the content. Enough apologizing. Just stating that you're not a racist doesn't mean anything--otherwise that logic would make Newt's latest attacks on Romney mean that he's in favor of the Occupy movement...

And btw, just for the record, isn't libertarianism s'posed to be all about accountability? Um, yeah. Right.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

Associates say....

Would someone who provided free medical care to poor, minority patients (during the same time period as when these newsletters were published) write such hateful things about those minorities?

Would a racist congressman fight the war on drugs, citing the discriminatory ways in which those laws impact black Americans? He even sites the inequality with which the laws are enforced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY#!

Would a racist man have the President of the Austin Chapter of the NAACP defending him against claims of racism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&t=1m40s

RonPaul supported Cynthia McKinney's run for congress in 2008. The fact that she is a black woman didn't seem to deter him from offering his support.

Would a racist help an inter racial couple when no one else would? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

Check and Mate

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Again, he read the material. He approved it. His view is that stores should be able to deny service to black people. Period. This is the public record. A lot of people don't know that he thinks it's unfair to brand people as racist who won't serve blacks, because "We don't know what they're thinking. It's their right not to serve whomever they want." (paraphrasing, but that's what he's said). I don't think the country would ever implement his vision, even if he were elected, thank god. But the fact that he was against the civil rights act tells volumes. Truth be told, his racism is less an issue for me, than the rest of his "plans."

As for healthcare? Better hope you never lose your job under an RP administration, right? Eliminate all taxes and repeal them as unconstitutional? Wow. The constitution calls for congress to raise taxes to help the people of the United States. He thinks that's wrong. Have states take care of everything? Great idea. They've got lots of cash, right?

Good luck with is candidacy.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I am not expecting him to be president but I do know he is not a racist. I simply put the 3 newsletters up against 30 years of actions, speeches, and public appearances. Most importantly his actions in fighting for poor people many of whom were and are minorities. Not because they are minorities but in regardless of the group they are in.

I have heard him say since the 1970s that the problems occur when you consider people in groups. People should not be granted or denied rights because they are in a particular group. Everyone should be treated as individuals and treated the same.

He would never get elected president let's not kid ourselves. What we are talking about in this post is folks calling him a racist when he clearly is not.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Forget race; that's inherent in his political ideals, whether you or he want to admit it. The Civil Rights Act? Kind of a cornerstone of what the United States has done--morally and ethically--right. If you're for him, you're against that, bottom line. You don't want to call that racist, okay, fine. But I believe it is; even if it's not straight-forward. See, you can be for something, say, racial equality in your actions, and be very much against something philosophically. That's why Stormfront likes the guy. They read and hear his views on the CRA and think, "yeah, man, he's one of us." Very very dangerous stuff. The fact that he doesn't see the contradiction is, in my view, the most scary thing. (For more on his inability to see logical connections, please refer to this blog piece: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2012/01/im-sorry-but-ron-paul-isnt-just.html

"Everyone should be treated as individuals and treated the same."

Well, that's a wonderful sentiment, but that's all it is--a sentiment. The fact is that we're not all equal. We have a very distinct privileged, striated class structure in this country--one that is increasingly divided between the elite haves and majority have nots. Ron Paul's world view would aggrandize the wealthiest at the expense of the masses. That's the truth of the matter. Getting rid of all regulations wouldn't magically "level the playing field," it would continue the funneling of limited resources into fewer and fewer hands. Eliminating taxes? What's that going to do, exactly? The problem isn't the federal government, because corporations are no more efficient. They're comprised of people as well--very bureaucratic people--just like the government, especially in the larger corporations, like he one that employs me.

There are no details, only high-minded ideals. No more war? Yes. Legalize pot? Yes. Eliminate racial equality laws and undermine the works of MLK? Um, not so much...

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

He's not racist, he's a bigot, that has made racist comments.

Plus he's a (R)epelican........................They get first place in the BIG lie!!!!

"I am not a crook!"

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

They are following him because the heard about the newsletters and believe the hype.

The newsletter story is old. He admitted that it was a mistake to net read all the letters. He published over 14,000 pages and there were hundreds of contributors. He did not write the words, he took responsibility for being negligent in not reading them all.

Would someone who provided free medical care to poor, minority patients (during the same time period as when these newsletters were published) write such hateful things about those minorities?

Would a racist congressman fight the war on drugs, citing the discriminatory ways in which those laws impact black Americans? He even sites the inequality with which the laws are enforced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY#!

Would a racist man have the President of the Austin Chapter of the NAACP defending him against claims of racism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&t=1m40s

RonPaul supported Cynthia McKinney's run for congress in 2008. The fact that she is a black woman didn't seem to deter him from offering his support.

Would a racist help an inter racial couple when no one else would? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Would a racist be against the Civil Rights Act?

Rep. Ron Paul kicked off his third run for president on Friday, but not without inciting controversy. Shortly after calling for abolishing FEMA on CNN, the latest Republican presidential candidate told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark piece of legislation that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.

Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.” (http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act.html)

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

Old story been over that one... nice try

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Some stories--even if they're old, are relevant. This one has been refreshed with the Stormfront info. They're his ardent supporters. That's not nothing. I'll keep this alive as long as I can, because it's convenient for RP'ers for it to go away. And I believe most of them don't even know about it or his acceptance of money from Stormfront. I believe most RPers are decent, pro-diversity folks, and would be horrified that RP is even remotely aligned with those bastards.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

You want to believe he is a racist.

You start with the supposition that he is a racist.

You look for any evidence that he is.

You ignore 50 years of personal behavior.

You ignore that he provided medical services and even delivered hundreds of babies for poor Blacks and Hispanics for free.

You ignore that he supported black candidates.

You ignore the comments of the NAACP president who knows RonPaul

It appears your mind is made up.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

JTF : Re. RP & fyi, "America’s Last Chance", by Paul Craig Roberts ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30250.htm . fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by relthinkr (64) 12 years ago

enough ron paul bashing shill boy

ows supports ron paul 100%

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

LOL. Right. And you would be...an OWS spokesperson?

I'm no shill--not happy about any of our choices. But just because RP is against war, doesn't mean that he's got good ideas. His world view--which has very few specifics, btw, I've read all his position papers--would result in a truly corporate run country, without any regulatory structure. Unless you've worked in both the government and in corporations, you can't really know that they are, by and large, very similar. They're both made up of flawed individuals working in huge bureaucratic machines. The main difference is that corporations have a profit / economic incentive to work against the welfare of people, whereas government bureaucracies do not.

This government vs. corporation thing is pretty silly, when you think of it. I've worked in both. Both of incompetent and inane at points, but both have their purpose--and both need to be modified/reigned in.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

When you have nothing on someone... Call them a racist.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

well yeah, that's the way it's done.

And if that don't work, then just supply a link to an article calling your opponents stupid/ mentally under developed with the guise of a forthcoming 'scientific' study that never happened like groobie did

oh, and here's that link he had at the bottom of the article

http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/07/ever-wonder-why-it-seems-so-hard-to-get.html

Kinda calls to memory when barry goldwater was accused of being mentally ill by a supposed 'psychologist' that turned out to be a political HACK

oops, I forgot my brain wasn't supposed to be fully formed, wonder how I recalled that? oh, that's right groobie says that's the courage center that's not formed right

wonder why I had the courage to write this? instead of hiding my comment on some back page like groobie did??

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

I never hid my comment--that's my blog. I posted that, as well as my posts against Ron Paul. And frankly, I posted this initially. I'm not hiding from anything. The issue regarding the amygdala is interesting--people who have an enlarged "fear" center tend to be conservatives. That's the issue. No one called anyone stupid or "mentally under developed."

So, thanks for the comments, but don't cast aspersions when you don't have the facts right.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Actually what's interesting is how you display supposed 'facts' over and over, without supplying a source for such 'facts'

case in point your cited untitled 'report'

I mean hell, I can play that game to... did you know there was a report somewhere someplace that lefties have a propensity for quoating non existant reports?

hopefully my sarcasm breaks through your fear center

But as far as casting aspersions, your words do so in all directions (yourself included, when you sound like a flake) and you have yet to site real facts.

oh, and BTW fucktard is a term of endearment

fucktard

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Sigh. Wrong. Again.

I cited "study," and here's the link that I PROVIDED in the post:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html

You just didn't click on it, apparently. Here's a quote from the linked page on the British site, the Daily Telegraph:

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life. The "exciting" correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students. They found that the size of the two areas of the brain directly related to the political views of the volunteers. However as they were all adults it was hard to say whether their brains had been born that way or had developed through experience. Prof Geraint Rees, who led the research, said: "We were very surprised to find that there was an area of the brain that we could predict political attitude. "It is very surprising because it does suggest there is something about political attitude that is encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that there is something in our brain structure that determines or results in political attitude."

Do the research first, then make snarky comments--not the other way around.

Hoorah and best wishes to you in your vocabulary building endeavors.

Peace.

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

No. Apparently you didn't take the time to read the post. Paul published his racist views previously. When you can't provide a rejoinder to proof, attack the person's veracity.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Oh, I read your article though

And I followed your link at the bottom thereof to where you accuse conservatives of being mentally under developed and cowardly with a claim to a 'scientific' study that you say is due to be published

How convenient.

kinda dispels you on the fact side of the equation.

Being a conservative and a former Marine I must ask, where in the hell do you get off trying to pass junk as fact.

Just because I defended your freedom to say useless drivel, doesn't mean you need to exercise it in such a shitty manner.

courage and cowardice has no ideology, or political affiliation. Anyone who's served knows this, and therein lies my proof

Fucktard

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Hey, thanks for using "adult language" like "fucktard to defend your views. Very, er, enlarged amygdalan of you. My point, if you're interested, is that people who have this enlarged area of the brain tend to fear difference.

For people who didn't read that post, here's the text so that they can judge for themselves:

"Results from a study to be published this year indicate that people with conservative brains have a larger amygdala--the fear center, or primitive part of the brain said to be responsible for reflexive impulses--and a smaller anterior cingulate, which is known to be the part of the brain that focuses courage and optimism.

This might explain why facts, figures, logic, and analysis don't appear to get through to conservatives who have made their minds up that, for example, people who are different represent a danger. It makes even more sense when one adds this research into the frustrating fight to get the right to acknowledge a different viewpoint. It might also explain why the hard right's position is more like religious one upmanship, than the give and take of civil discourse and negotiation."

The point is that liberals/progressives tend to accept those who are different than themselves more readily than conservatives. And to be honest? That's pretty commonly understood, to be honest--you don't need "junk research" to know that.

Peace.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

your welcome on the adult language part, but actually it was because of my lack of fear of differences that I can use such colorful language.

And I logically set forth my arguement as to why you are a fucktard, before calling you one. So, being well reasoned, that pretty much dispells my supposed lack of reasoning ability.

And, yes, when you have no proof of the existance of some report somewhere, it is 'junk science'

And to be honest both extreme right and extreme left are populated by those that conjour such BS. and this isn't biological, it's just that you extremists are... well....

Fucktards

and this cuts both ways, here's a link

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ice-age-now-where-have-all-the-warmists-gone-long-/

I treat extreme righties the same way when they quote nonexistant reports too

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

I provided proof. You choose not to follow the links or read them. I can't do all of your homework for you. (FYI: correlation was found by scientists at University College London...)

Using "colorful language" is one thing, trying to undermine your opponents with ad hominem attacks is another. But hey, whatever. You're uninterested in my analysis or points of view; that's fine. I feel the same about yours.

Cheers.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

nope, folloed the link, no title to the report sited, just a requate by a reporter of some report.

When actual scientific studies are done, certain thing happen

a report title, group conducted on, a control group, methodology of researcher etc etc.

these are all conveniently missing

so, I have to throw out the bullshit flag

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Okay, it takes a little more than just casting aspersions, you have to do a little homework:

Here's the link to the University College of London's own Website on the subject: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10122301

Here's the bio of the lead researcher:

https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=GEREE91

Here's a summary:

"Liberals and conservatives may find themselves disagreeing on issues as wide-ranging as the future of the NHS, the UK's involvement in Afghanistan and whether students should pay tuition fees at university, but could these differences be a result of different brain structures? New research commissioned by the Today Programme and led by Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow Professor Geraint Rees suggests that this may be so."

I hope this helps with the whole "veracity" thing.

....

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I have read many posts and articles on the subject of the newsletters. Postings this information is an attempt to paint him as a racist.

I have also read a lot about the man RonPaul and his life.

RonPaul is not a racist.

[-] -2 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

He endorsed those newsletters. They had his name on them--and, one MUST assume, he agreed with the views contained therein. They contained racist views. Ergo, logically, he endorsed racist views. He has also taken money from the leader of Stormfront and has posed in pictures with him. (see my other post: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/12/it-not-youthe-problem-with-ron-pauls.html

I'm not painting him as a racist--he has pained himself as a racist. I'm just reporting it.

Oh, and btw, just stating that he's not a racist isn't an argument.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

The newsletter story is old. He admitted that it was a mistake to net read all the letters. He published over 14,000 pages and there were hundreds of contributors. HE did not write the words, he took responsibility for being negligent in not reading them all.

"just stating that he's not a racist isn't an argument."

I agree so I ask.....

Would someone who provided free medical care to poor, minority patients (during the same time period as when these newsletters were published) write such hateful things about those minorities?

Would a racist congressman fight the war on drugs, citing the discriminatory ways in which those laws impact black Americans? He even sites the inequality with which the laws are enforced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY#!

Would a racist man have the President of the Austin Chapter of the NAACP defending him against claims of racism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&t=1m40s

RonPaul supported Cynthia McKinney's run for congress in 2008. The fact that she is a black woman didn't seem to deter him from offering his support.

Would a racist help an inter racial couple when no one else would? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

"The newsletter story is old."

And that's relevant, how? If you put your name on something--and read it (as I believe he did) and then sell it to people as your views--that's pretty damning.

If you put your name on something--and don't read it (as I don't believe) and sell it to people as your views--that's pretty damning, too. How? Well, first, your name is on it. You own that shit. Second, you're selling something to people that haven't even read. At a minimum, that's misleading.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

I agree so I ask.....

Would someone who provided free medical care to poor, minority patients (during the same time period as when these newsletters were published) write such hateful things about those minorities?

Would a racist congressman fight the war on drugs, citing the discriminatory ways in which those laws impact black Americans? He even sites the inequality with which the laws are enforced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY#!

Would a racist man have the President of the Austin Chapter of the NAACP defending him against claims of racism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&t=1m40s

RonPaul supported Cynthia McKinney's run for congress in 2008. The fact that she is a black woman didn't seem to deter him from offering his support.

Would a racist help an inter racial couple when no one else would? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

And I ask: Would a racist congressman take donations from known white supremacists?

Ron Paul has knowingly took a donation from the head of Stormfront:

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Republican presidenti­al hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacis­t, and the Texas congressma­n doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.­" (source: http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/22­331091/ns/­politics-d­ecision_08­/t/paul-ke­eps-donati­on-white-s­upremacist­/#.TxLUGGO­XTPo)

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

You just refuse to answer the questions.

You want to believe he is a racist.

You start with the supposition that he is a racist.

You look for any evidence that he is.

You ignore 50 years of personal behavior.

You ignore that he provided medical services and even delivered hundreds of babies for poor Blacks and Hispanics for free.

You ignore that he supported black candidates.

You ignore the comments of the NAACP president who knows RonPaul

It appears your mind is made up so I am done wasting my energy here.

[-] 0 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

No. I disagree with the supposition. Just because he's done those things doesn't mean he's not a racist (or has done racist things). Illogical. I have no agenda at all--I just did the homework and it adds up to racism, in my opinion. I could accuse you of the same, btw--you haven't addressed my points. He took money from Mr. Black of Stormfront. Headed up a newsletter that espoused racist views. He has said he'd vote against the civil rights act because it's against people's right to serve whomever they want at their establishment. You don't care about these things, cool. I think they're relevant.

Good luck to you and your cause. You'll need it.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Wonder how the GOP establishment will rip santorum apart like they did the only other conservative in the race Newt G.?

If Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be surprised for sure, but it'll be a pleasant surprise.