Can We Cut Out The Ron Paul Love At DU?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."


http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html


Res ipsa loquitur

[Mojorabbit]

1. I think we are mature

enough to discuss his good points and his bad points but that is just my opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Hmmm

So what can someone say that excludes him or her from the company of decent people?

[Mojorabbit]

40. He is running for President

and is part of the landscape of this election. I think he is fair game to discuss. It isn't like I am going to vote for him after all. I won't be contaminated in any way if someone discusses his policies, pro or con. Mature political discussion.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. His bad point is that he's a racist whackjob.

I'm no more inclined to discuss his good points than David Duke's.

[TwilightZone]

2. To some, there is only one issue, and that issue trumps all.

You'd think that those people would gravitate toward Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. Why they instead choose to latch onto a right-wing wacko is beyond my understanding.

[gateley]

36. It's the money thing again. If more people heard Gravel they'd most likely

give him some consideration. He really seems to be aligned with what many of us want.

I was strongly drawn to them both (Gravel and Kucinich) - and if either were to become President, I'd be thrilled.

Regardless of who wins, we're all benefitting from hearing and learning of other issues and other approaches from all the candidates. Gravel has a LOT to offer, and it's our loss that we're not seeing/hearing more of him.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

75. Exactly

You said it for me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Agreed -- the fact that Paul opposes the war doesn't mean he's a good guy.

In fact, he's a nasty mix of racist, anti-choice wackjob and fanatical Randian objectivist wackjob. Sometimes we tend to forget that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

[krispos42]

59. True, but...

while he is definately not an alternative to a mainstream Repub, as long as he continues to tie the GOP up in knots during the debates and speak truth about Iraq, I'll support him getting as much airtime as he can handle.

In fact, for the next couple of months, a donated campaign dollar will probably do more to hurt the GOP by being given to Ron Paul instead of a Democratic candidate! The more cash and time the Repubs spend fighting him off and trying to re-gather the fragmenting righties, the less they have to spend fighting Dems.

He may be a libertarian loonie, but he's tearing up the other side and using donated rightie dollars to do it. That works for me.

[Virginia Dare]

4. As long as he's anti-war, people can forgive him for his racism..

and other right wing loonery I guess. It disgusts me.

[Trajan]

5. DU Love is what DU love does ..

I have never entered the Ron Paul threads, and so have never experienced 'Ron Paul Love'

I would ask you to consider the paltry numbers, and put it all in perspective ... It cannot amount to much ....

[ThePowerofWill]

6. I may not agree with him, but i do admire him.

He says whats on his mind good, or bad not hiding behind parsed words. Theres always something to be admired in someone who speaks their mind freely, whether you agree with them or not.

Like his comments on blacks. Horrid as they may sound these are commonly held beliefs in many repukes, and others. Yet most don't have the guts to say it for fear of repercussions. With a free speaker you know whats on his mind good, or bad, and can make a true judgment on their character from there.

Better to have such thoughts out in the open for all to judge than hiding behind shadows.

[Hardrada]

8. I agree.

[rockymountaindem]

9. Yeah, you have to respect a man who gives voice to the hatred so many people just feel

:sarcasm:

[ThePowerofWill]

12. You sure do.

If all bigots were open then you know who the bigots are. When bigots hide behinds parsed words, and innuendo they are often not so easy to see. If a person has, or holds strong beliefs i like to know up front. This way you know what your dealing with.

The world needs more real honesty.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. You could say the same for David Duke. I do not admire him either. nt

[ThePowerofWill]

17. Yep, some people could.

I've never dug to deep on Duke, but i am well aware of his Klan affiliations. I appreciate the knowledge. Knowing his stance, and being open about it allows me to make an honest opinion to not support him, even for dog catcher.

Kinda like Smirky McCokehead. He pretended to be Mr. compassionate conservative, Mr. Cowboy, Mr. war hero, and many bought it. had he have been honest and told people he was an elitist, classist, draft dodging snob how many would have been better served?

[cali]

15. I think that's sad. David Duke says what's on his mind too.

I bet you don't have any admiration for him. And speaking of neo-nazis, Ron Paul has taken a sizeable contribution from one of the leading neo-nazis, the guy who owns Stormfront. He's aware of this contribution and has not returned it. That does not speak well of Paul

[ThePowerofWill]

19. See post #17

Dukes honesty has served me well in that because i know about his past actions, and present i don't nor will ever take him seriously as a candidate.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Better to have them out in the open - well, yes because you know whom NOT to support!

But such attitudes are hardly admirable. Was it admirable when Trent Lott spoke in favour of Thurmond and segregation?

[ThePowerofWill]

27. No because Trent tried to parse it.

It was also shaded in innuendo. He was not being brave, honest, or stalwart. He was being stupid and got caught.

Honesty, and self conviction is to be admired, stupidity is not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Power of will, eh?

Gee whiz, where have I heard that before?

[ThePowerofWill]

22. I don't know, you tell me?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Nazi propaganda.

And G. Gordon Liddy.

[ThePowerofWill]

24. Thats a new one on me bro.

Mind informing an ignorant man a bit more? I chose the name because my real name is Will, and i used to box. Trainers and partners would comment on the power of Will.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Try This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Paul wants to concentrate on eliminating Social Security & "Entitlements"

He sees the Iraq war as a distraction from the bigger goal. Only a fool would support a shit head like that.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yep. Agree.

[MADem]

11. Those people are on the wrong forum. It's in the rules, after all. nt

[riverdeep]

14. Guess who the white nationalists are supporting?

You guessed it, Ron Paul. I'm not going to link to it, but find the major white nationalist site and take a perusal. They hate Bush (because he furthered a Neocon i.e. to them exclusively Jewish agenda and he's letting in illegals). They're coming out in huge support of Ron Paul because he'll cut off aid to 'welfare queens'.

I have no desire to limit topics, but do keep these things in mind.

[NashVegas]

18. Not Just Yet, Thanks

Paul may be a whack job in some areas, but he is getting certain topics on the table at the Republican debates, topics that can serve progressives and Democrats in a national discussion.

Dennis K speaking against the Iraq generates zero headlines. Paul getting into it with a junta suck-up does.

[Phx_Dem]

21. Even conservatives don't know what to make of him

Is Ron Paul Pandering to the Paranoid?

What is it about the candidacy of Ron Paul that has attracted the paranoid fringe of American politics?

Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming "neocons" for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism). For all we know, they may be the majority of his supporters.

But just as clearly, there is a dark underbelly to the Paul campaign -- a ruthless, mob of internet ruffians who seek to intimidate those who would dare criticize them, the Paul candidacy, or most especially, one of their pet conspiracy theories about 9/11, the "New World Order" (an amorphous term that generally means the imposition of a one world government), or something as mundane and silly as planting a computer chip in every new born in America.

The question isn't whether Ron Paul believes in any of these conspiracy theories, although he has said on at least two occasions that he believes the investigation into 9/11 must be reopened to explore "unanswered questions" about the tragedy. It is his apparent pandering to this lunatic fringe that must be explored and reasons for it demanded from the campaign.

I say "apparent" pandering because there is the possibility that Paul is completely clueless that his anti-government rants (a subjective word but apt if you listen to his speeches or watch him in the debates) full of dark hints of conspiracy and wrongdoing by the highest officials in the land, actually ring a Pavlovian bell for the paranoid conspiracy freaks causing them to flock to his banner.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/is_ron_paul_pandering_to_the_p.html

[HughMoran]

26. Drives me nuts - he's advertising on liberal radio stations

I am getting more and more sick of his ads now that I know he is a bigot and hates poor people.

[Jacobin]

28. No. He's the staunchest anti Iraq war candidate on the slate

And always has been.

Before we worry about our rights here in this country, we need to get the fuck out of Iraq where we are committing genocide.

[blondeatlast]

29. "Before we worry about our rights here in this country, ..."

How very George Bush of you.

[Jacobin]

32. Here's what I'm trying to say

Number 1. The dude has no chance of being elected, okay?

Number 2. He's against social security, abortion rights, any government program to help the poor and loads of other issues that make me glad he has no chance of being elected.

Number 3. The biggest problem the neo-cons and the neo-con enablers in the world have created is the obliteration of a country of 24 million people. A million or more killed, hundreds of thousands maimed. hundreds of billions of dollars of bomb damage and 4 million people run out of their own country.

As a citizen of the world, in my mind (my George Bush mind, according to you), his exceedingly staunch position on Iraq (from the beginning, I might add), the utter obliteration of Iraq (and possibly Iran next) needs to be remedied before we worry about the problems his libertarian position would create in this country. And he needs to be applauded for that. Unlike our current crop of dem nominees, Kucinich excluded.

Number 4. Having a staunch anti war republican candidate is a good thing. Having a staunch anti war ANY PARTY candidate is a good thing. Having neo-con enabling democratic candidates sucks donkey dicks.

If that makes me "very george bush like", then so be it.

[incapsulated]

63. Pat Buchanan was outspoken against the war at first, too

Should he have been a DU hero?

At what point do you say, even if I agree with you on this, I refuse to associate myself with you because you are: crazy, racist and hold ideas which are in opposition to everything I believe in?

Sure, it's great to have someone up on stage with the repukes rubbing this in their face.

That doesn't mean I "support" him or like him or anything of the kind.

I'm sure I could find something David Duke and I share in common, too. So what. I wish he would disappear.

I'm also sure that those who handwave "stuff at home" like... racism, are probably white.

[Jacobin]

69. Buchanan waffles on this issue

I used to read the Ron Paul rants against IraqNam in the run up to the war and they could have been written by a DUer. World class rants.

They are relentless, well thought out and utterly consistent. Unlike any dem nominee.

I give him props for that.

[LaurenG]

30. Yikes, I've been having fits about the mention of his name here for months

he's a republican in Libertarian clothing.

[sam sarrha]

31. he can write a good essay, but really do you want to live in a world devoid of social conscience..

totally!!!!!! privatized for profit with no public schools or public protections, no over site , totally permanent social stratification..

there is no such thing as a little bit Libertarian.. it would be much worse than bu$h,

[Chovexani]

33. OMG

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

The Flash is black?! :wow:

(and yes, Ron Paul is batshit insane, can we cut the crap please?)

[NoPasaran]

34. Ron Paul is scum

Fuck him and fuck the horse he rode in on.

[blondeatlast]

39. Aw, c'mon, have a heart.

The horse is innocent...

[MrMickeysMom]

43. That's harsh...

Ron Paul was one of the ... no, make that the ONLY republican who had it right about what in the hell was going on with the (then) majority during the 90's... I can think of lots of republicans that are scum, but Ron Paul is not one of them.

Sure you're not just a tad sensative about this?

[NoPasaran]

45. Racist... anti-choice... anti-Social Security...

anti-United Nations... dreams of restoring the gold standard...

How low is the bar set for scum these days?

[MrMickeysMom]

81. How is he racist?

I understand that his nut bread brain that resembles most libertarians, but, he's a racist???

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Pretty much sums it up for me.

:thumbsup:

[marmar]

35. Agreed.....And in addition to his racist blatherings....He's more anti-government than Bush.

'Nuff said.

PS - I'd love to see him win the Repug nomination, tho, just to totally throw that party into chaos, then get trounced by the Dem in the general.

[eridani]

37. Even though he has his head up his ass on many issues--

---he is dead on right about the war and the threats to our Constitution. No other Republican is even remotely close to sanity.

[graywarrior]

38. If I see one more Ron Paul bumper sticker in Sarasota I'm gonna freak out!

Jay-sus, these idiots just cannot admit we need a democrat in the WH.

[dbt]

41. Short answer, NO.

Ron Paul says things that "our Democrats" seem to be VERY afraid of, thinking that SOMEONE may laugh at them on TV.

:argh:

PS: In case you DLC types STILL DON'T GET IT, the fear of being laughed at has replaced CONSCIENCE in the "Democrat" party,

[Basileus Basileon]

53. Yes. For instance,

"I want to eliminate the Department of Education."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. Ha!

Between this thread and your valiant defense of science in a certain other thread, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. You Are 100% Correct

No Democrat would ever say "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


DSB

[progressive_realist]

42. This is a dishonest hit piece

Paul did not write the 1992 newsletter article attributed to him. It was written by a staffer and published in his name. Paul has (sort of) apologized for the statements made in his name.

Paul has definite faults, but there is no need to resort to fabrications to discredit him.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Besides, let's face the real issue: No one on DU would pay the slightest bit of attention to Paul if our own leading candidates would just get some backbone and draw a line in the sand against this stupid, stupid war. Like 60% of American voters want them to.

[RantingWacko]

50. Oh, I See!

So Ron Paul isn't racist - he's just too damn lazy to write his own newsletter or too stupid to have someone proofread something that is being published in his name before it is sent out to the public.

Well, that changes everything! Where do I sign on to help his campaign?

[Tarc]

51. Bull

If it is written in his name by his paid employees, then it really doesn't matter if he penned it or not, as he still bears the responsibility.

This Paul fawning by some around here is disgusting. Just because he opposes the Iraq war doesn't excuse his neocon groupthink about abolishing the UN and such. This is about as nutty as the right-winger's embracing Joe Lieberman,

[Fierce]

44. No! He's against the WAAARRRRR!

That makes him an ideologically pure candidate! Bwaaaak!

[tuckessee]

56. Well, "WAAARRRRR" is a pressing issue.

Not something to be taken lightly. After all, a few hundred thousand people (mostly brown foreigners) are dead as a result of it.

We should also consider the looming war with Iran which Paul is 100% opposed to as well. Millions could die in that.

Too bad the Dem candidates don't see that his unwavering anti-war position is to a large degree responsible for his popularity.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. David Duke Opposes The War Too And Is Much Better Looking

Sheeesh...

[eridani]

46. Interesting thing about Seattle's peace march on 10/27

The only presidential campaigns with a presense there were those of Kucinich and Paul. I was there for Dennis, and one of Paul's young campaigners said "Looks like Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Democratic presidential race." I sez, "Well, the way I'd put it is that Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican presidential race." I got into universal health care then, and almost had the kid convinced.

[Lilith Velkor]

48. Fat chance - too many closeted bigots here

They seem to think his position on the war is the perfect smokescreen. :eyes:

[theredpen]

49. I think that column was a tragically failed attempt at satire and irony

Ron Paul is not a racist, although his is definitely a bit nutty.

My wife was friends with one of his daughters in high school, right around the time this was written. She remembers that he was a bit dismayed that this article was taken literally. Ron Paul was always nice to my wife's father even though he was a Socialist Jew, which says a lot for his tolerance (if you know how much Ron Paul hates Socialism).

When Paul's daughter wanted to rid herself of a boyfriend, she'd invite him over to meet her dad and encourage the poor guy to "mention the gold standard." That would be the last that kid would be seen around the Paul household.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. He's anti-choice and anti-separation of church and state. Fuck 'im. nt

[bridgit]

54. Without Doubt!!

[AndyTiedye]

55. I'd Like to See Ron Paul Win the Repiglickin Nomination. Wouldn't Vote for Him in the General

If Ron Paul wins the Repig nomination, it would push our nominee to oppose the war too, something which our frontrunners are not doing.

I'd consider voting for Ron Paul in the Repig Primary if the Dem Primary turns out to be meaningless (as it usually is in California).

I'll still be voting Democratic in the general election in any event.

[Islander Expat]

58. I have a feeling that if the Dems run HRC, a lot of people here will be looking closely at Ron Paul

e0m

[Melynn]

61. Huh? No. No one here will vote for Ron Paul

I'm not a big HRC fan but I would vote her over any Republican. Including Ron Paul.

[DeepModem Mom]

60. K&R

[LeftishBrit]

62. And how about this stuff...

This is from a speech that he made a few years ago, that is still on his website so presumably represents his current policies - AARRRGGGHHHH!!!



'A Republic, If You Can Keep ItDr. Ron PaulU.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representativesdelivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.


....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'



And this is someone who could be acceptable to liberals????

[riverdeep]

64. Sounds like the standard libertarian line,

combined with social conservatism. Odd. Most libertarians are pro-choice, for example. And 'hetero-phobia'? Yes, us poor oppressed heterosexuals! I have to spend an entire 7 nanoseconds to locate a heterosexual on TV.

[LeftishBrit]

71. Yes; not a good combination

And I kept expecting the comments to end with, "The New Deal is EEVIL! Defeat FDR in 1940!!!!"

[HughBeaumont]

65. Finally we agree on something.

His people were handing out flyers with this photo on it. In full color.



"Progressive" Republican, and yet you're proud to be photographed with the man who got the plutocracy snowball rolling?

Yeah, flat-taxer and anti-choicer, THAT's going to get me to vote for you.

[timtom]

66. There is a lot of appeal in his anti-war stance

But, whenever I see all the hoopla about Ron Paul, I wonder why in the hell we aren't putting that much energy into supporting Dennis Kucinich?

UFO, indeed! Bah!

How's about getting the hell out of Iraq and dropping all the saber-rattling against Iran?

How are those for important issues?

(and that's why there is such a groundswell for Paul, and I am embarrassed that we don't see that same groundswell for Kucinich.)

Hillary this.
Barack that.
Biden this.
etc...

[RantingWacko]

77. You know, I might respect his anti-War stance...

... were it inspired by him actually being against the War and not by his wanting to slash the budget for little things like providing our troops with armor.

[malaise]

73. All you write is factual however

Ron Paul has helped turn people off of this madness in Iraq. For that he deserves some credit.

[RantingWacko]

79. That gets him nothing....

People have been disastified with the War for a long time. Paul just gives the conservative sheep a way to actively be anti-War without supporting a Democrat.

[Jennifer C]

74. Edwards and Biden

Haven't they both made racist remarks?

[blondeatlast]

83. Welcome to DU. Prove it.

Sheesh.

[Vinca]

76. I've got the impression many Ron Paul supporters don't look beyond

the anti-war stance and marijuana legalization. He wants a strong military, no social programs and no taxes. I guess he's going to hold bake sales to pay for the military.

[RantingWacko]

78. Exactly....

He wants a strong military and talks tough about the importance of it... and yet he's voted against giving our troops the basics they need to survive - on the field and off. He talks about how he's consistently voted against the war... which would be admirable if he hadn't also been consistently voting against troop pay-raises, increased troop benefits and... oh yes... seeing our men and women in the field properly armed and armored.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. I strongly support Paul's efforts to splinter the Republican Party.

And so should you. It is good for us. I won't consider voting for him in the general election because, as noted, he holds views I find abhorrent. However that last item 'holds views I find abhorrent' is a tough hurdle for me to get over for a lot of the current candidates.

[OzarkDem]

82. First, he's not a Democrat

so supporting him here is no different than supporting Cindy or Ralph Nader.

Second, anyone who plans to vote for him in the primary must register as a Republican.

Enough said.