Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is the real Ron Paul (For those of you who like him)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:40 AM
Original message
This is the real Ron Paul (For those of you who like him)
In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”

In 1996 in an article, in the Houston Chronicle, “…Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." ... Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. "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 wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. 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," Paul said. Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

The Stormfront (white supremacist, neo-Nazi leaning) website has a promotional page for Ron Paul. Paul’s campaign accepted $500 in campaign donations from Stormfront founder and known neo-Nazi Don Black, and until recently Paul refused to return the donation. While Paul’s campaign has a fascinating number of ties to Stormfront, they refused to return the calls of Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Siederaski wrote:



“Any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. That Paul’s campaign needs time to think about it is shocking. Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview….”
In Tennessee one of Ron Paul’s biggest internet organizers is neo-Nazi leader Will Williams, who is a southern point person for the National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi organization in the US. According to Andrew Walden, author of the American Thinker piece, Williams is in part responsible for the extreme numbers of “meet-up” individuals who have registered for Paul. Some 61,000 Ron Paul supporters are registered, compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, and 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich. Williams may also be responsible for the enormous amount of spam and comments received by anyone who dares criticize Ron Paul.

Williams is not the only white supremacist, KKK, or neo-Nazi supporter Ron Paul has. He is supported by David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine is also a Ron Paul supporter. Strangely enough Barry Manilow is also a Paul supporter as is Cindy Sheehan. There are ties to the American Nationalist Union and several serious anti-Semitic sites and organizations. Also supporting Paul are long time “Christian” conservatives like Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin who is closely associated with the Constitution Party.

Dave Neiwert, quoting Chip Berlet, wrote “Those neo-Nazis have a First Amendment right to endorse Ron Paul, but Ron Paul has a moral obligation to disavow that donation." He added: "There's two issues: Why would anyone have to ask Ron Paul to disassociate himself from the endorsement of neo-Nazis? And the second is that when they did ask him, his silence spoke volumes about his values. You know, 'I don't enjoy the endorsement of neo-Nazis' — how hard is that to say? And why hasn't he refunded it? It's not like this is a gray area."


More on our dear Ron Paul at:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Barry Manilow, a Juilliard-trained musician, is for Ron Paul?
We're getting into serious noir territory here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lurky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
49. That surprised me too.
I mean, Manilow is Jewish and (according to most people) gay.

The truth is, I know more than one person who is otherwise rational, and even non-white in one case, but likes Ron Paul.

Maybe it's the combination of anti-war, anti-corporate, pro-constitution rhetoric? Someone who wasn't knowledgeable about politics might even think he was a liberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Hi, Lurky. Good points. I can see a voter hell-bent on ending Bush's war
supporting any voice who opposes it.

Well, there's still time to win Manilow's vote back to the blue team.

It's going to be interesting this January to see how many of the Pat Buchanan vote Ron Paul can gather in. Things could get real interesting up there for the Pukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. Indeed, Sir, A Most Unsavory Fellow....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Katzenkavalier, I think your post helps frame Paul for the sort of support he
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 02:16 AM by Old Crusoe
teases at and often accepts.

The Stormfront group is especially frightening and disturbing. A challenger to Barbara Boxer one year, Matt Fong, was in the lead against her until it was learned that he had sent a personal check to a "traditional values" group. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/10/27/MN92242.DTLFrom that point forward, voters were no longer interested in trusting him.

Paul ought to have disavowed the support of people who seek to discriminate and marginalize and hate.

I agree with the author in your exceprt -- it would have been a real simple thing to do, and Paul failed to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. How did Ron Paul support Storm Front? I haven't heard of that...
what happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. More a case of Storm Front supporting Paul and Paul refusing to disavow
their support, which many would find suspicious conduct for any public servant purporting to represent all the people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Has he been confronted by the press on it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. The mainstream media is a bit lax in its duties sometimes.
It will be interesting to see if they are more inclined to ask tougher questions this election cycle, especially if Paul should continue to rise in polling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. He Will Do Surprisingly well In New Hampshire, Sir
Rum fun, it will be....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Good morning. Yes it will be fun to watch.
How exciting if Paul should outpoll Giuliani in NH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. It Is Still Last Night To Me, My Friend
Turning insomnia to good use....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Ah! Here's what we'll do. We'll send Joe Biden over to your place with
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 08:42 AM by Old Crusoe
some coffee.

A DU thread over the weekend featured Joe serving coffee in an Iowa cafe. Consensus splayed, with some feeling it was a gesture to manipulate the vote in the upcoming caucuses and others delighted by the folksy charm.

I've taken the liberty of adding blueberry muffins to the order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Thank You For The Thought, Sir
Blueberry muffins are about my favorite, short of bacon and chocolate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. They are powerful. In any case I hope all is well your way.
The coming 30-some days are going to be a high threshold interest moment in U.S. political history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ron Paul's conception of freedom is bizarre
His idea of "freedom" is that powerful people--businesspersons, corporations, state universities--should have the freedom to include and exclude people on the basis of race. That means more freedom for the powerful and much less freedom for those without power and/or white skin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's called racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Very similar to some peoples' definition of "religious freedom".
and the "right" to discriminate based on "deeply held religious beliefs--which is strongly defended even here by some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. Exactly.
Sad to see that Obama apologists fail to see the correlation between pandering to white supremacists and homophobes. McClurkin is as despicable as any white supremacist, in my book. The "bible" is not an excuse to discriminate against a segment of society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. He makes a typical conservative error...
...in thinking that enough institutional racism has been undone that we can go to a fully "colorblind" legal situation. What it gets down to is he wants "race-blind" admissions and hiring, which really means no government auditing of race in hiring and admissions, which in theory is laudable and in practice means a return to discrimination in many cases.

So, while he's wrong, his rhetoric is interesting. The stock anti-affirmative-action rhetoric is "these less qualified (ie, black and brown) people are being promoted over deserving (ie, white) people". Paul's rhetoric is that the problem of racism is a spiritual and moral one and that looking at racial data in hiring won't actually fix the problem. As far as that goes, I agree with him; the problem for me is he then goes on to say we should do away with looking at racial data altogether.

Now, here's where my "nuanced" take on Paul has gotten me some enemies on this board, so I'm going to tread carefully:

His answer regarding affirmative action is wrong.

But, he's one of the few "major" politicians out there asking the important primary question: how and in what way can the government stop systemic racism? Not "how can we get a company or school to look like America?" Getting that to happen won't magically make the racism stop. While in itself it's the right thing to do; for all I know it's just making racist resentment worse.

Issue after issue, I feel like he's got the wrong answer but is -- and this is rare for a politician -- asking the right question.

He wants to deregulate most businesses. OK, that's a non-starter for me. But when he says why, I have to stop for a moment. It's not the normal libertarian garbage that these captains of industry need to be able to work their magic; in fact it's the opposite: he points out (and with some discomforting accuracy) that too many regulations are actually written by the major corporate interests in the field in question, and are designed not so much to protect consumers as they are to stifle smaller competitors.

I've seen that in meat processing, dairy farming, and IT just to name the industries I know anything about. While he's clearly wrong that the answer is to undo all regulation, he's right that there's a big problem with government handing over its regulatory power to corporations who then use it to prevent competition. Now I understand that people are disappointed that a Democrat like me would even give a second look to Paul (and I want to reiterate I don't support him and don't want to see him as President), but then tell me where are the Democrats who are talking about the massive collusion between corporations and government that has been occurring since "deregulation" began?

On a final side note, I have met the guy and he's fascinating to talk to. His knowledge of history is impressive and his interests are very wide (kind of an Anti-Bush). On a personal level I liked him (I didn't know about the stormfront stuff back then; this was years ago) -- if I've been "defending" him, or seeming to, it might be because of that. And I was impressed that he was not annoying like most libertarians are (they're generally, in my experience, like freshman philosophy majors who just can't accept that their perfect worldview might not work for everyone). He had nuanced and complex thoughts about a bunch of issues (for instance, he wants massive government investment in certain infrastructures, albeit paid for by use fees). He clearly (to me; maybe he was just being a politician) saw the danger that corporate power represents to individual liberty and dignity (he said in an aside he is "as afraid" of corporate intrusions on liberty as he is of government intrusions on liberty).

Don't support Ron Paul. Don't like Ron Paul. But don't assume you know everything about him based on what party he calls himself and what other people say he wants to do. And, while you're at it, find me a Democratic presidential candidate who expresses the same concern about mega-corporations taking over the country...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. you're an apologist for Ron Paul in thread after thread.
it's been pointed out to you, time after time, exactly why liberals should neither support or defend him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Because thread after thread you and a few others completely miss his campaign's point
And I still think it's dangerous to set up a straw Ron Paul in order to knock him down.

That said, we'll just talk past each other for the next 10 posts or so if history serves as a guide, so nevermind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. What Do You Think, Sir, Is His Campaign's Point?
The man is a hard-right libertarian, a bigot in several directions, the idol of militia types, and deserves the obscurity he till lately enjoyed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. When have you heard a libertarian blast corporate power before?
Or complain about "free" trade? Or for that matter blast corporate welfare (which you would think more libertarians would do)? Or talk about how pharma and insurance companies are stacking the deck against doctors and patients and need to be reined in?

If that's typical libertarian fare from your experience, I've been meeting very different kinds of libertarians than you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Perhaps You Have Been, Sir
Those remain his roots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Let's keep talking past each other- if only because I find your
tireless apologia disturbing. You twist Paul's position to fit your own frame- I have no idea why. You're clearly a hard core Paul supporter, and yet you consistently deny it even as you offer one paean after another to him.

Paul does not support greater corporate control. To the contrary, he supports less regulation and lower taxes on corporations.

He unabashedly supports dog eat dog capitalism. You try and spin it as anti-corporatism.

It's massively disingenuous on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
48. lol... I'm "clearly" a Paul supporter?
Let's see... feeling the need to warn my party of the threat I think Paul represents... yeah... that's "support" right there.

I've heard quite a few of his stump speeches and interviews (they kept being on when I would turn on the radio for a period a few months back).

It is possible, I admit, that he is simply lying through his teeth at every single speech and interview, and that his goal is to increase corporate power. It is possible.

Even if that's true, why do you refuse to acknowledge that his language is anti-corporate-power? Particularly when I've supplied more than a few examples of it? If my warning is nothing else, it's this:

Here is a libertarian who is using language that taps into anti-corporate sentiment. That in itself is dangerous.

What astounds me is that you and a few others refuse to admit that he even uses the language and seem to think I'm crazy for saying he does, when I've heard it with my own ears time and time again.

Moreover, if he's not simply lying through his teeth, and in fact is pursuing an anti-corporate libertarianism, that has IMO a pretty big chance of hurting our party, and it's something we should be ready to face, and we don't face it by pretending it's normal Randian libertarianism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
32. Employers...not necessarily rich ones, but employers. And not just RACE.
Hey, you -- ya fat slob--you're FIRED!!!

You there, Ugly Fugly--pick up your pink slip and BEGONE!

Geez, we got too many dames in this office--dump a few of them, why doncha, there, supervisor?

You gay fellah in the third cubicle from the end? Get your gay ass outta my workplace! Yer AXED, pal!


In Ron Paul's America, that would be Okey-Dokie. No recourse, no redress, no nuthin'....but oh, he's just so ..... COOL!!!!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. Katzenkavalier, is it possible to like Ron Paul's anti-war
position, yet dislike everything else about the man?

Because it seems like that's what you're implying when you say, "For those who like him."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Pat Buchanan is anti-war as well
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 02:03 AM by Katzenkavalier
and the dude is shit. I believe that we are not suppossed, as Democrats, to give any of these racist, radical clowns one bit of credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well Pat Buchanan isn't anti-war because he dislikes war.
per se.

He's an extreme isolationist.

Maybe one can argue Paul is also.

But the point is I see nothing wrong with admitting that Ron Paul is right about at least one thing.

It's hardly giving him credibility when one opposes practically everything else he stands for as I do.

Don't worry, I don't think anyone who likes Ron Paul enough to support him (which I certainly don't) would be taking any votes away from Obama.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. What does Obama have to do with Ron Paul?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Read my post 17.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Some Of These Items, Sir
Raise real questions about the actual roots of his 'anti-war position'. There is not much support for the present administration's policy in the Middle East on Stormfront, after all, though you would probably not agree with the reasons generally given for opposing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Magistrate, if it means that innocent Americans and
foreign civilians would stop dying, what difference does it honest and truly really make?

I doubt the families of potential victims care what "the actual roots" of Paul's anti-war position are, or anyone else's, as long as it means their loved ones survive.

Ya know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. It Is Generally a Poor Idea, Sir
To make common cause with people who would shoot you out of hand if they had half a chance....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. cboy4, it is possible to be anti-war and still never speal well of Ron Paul
Being anti-war doesn't mean you are required to speak well of Ron Paul.

No one is forcing anyone to do so. It's a choice. Just don't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Well Cuke, you're implying or accusing that I initiate
threads and comments about Ron Paul.

I don't. I'm not voting for the guy, nor would I.

The only reason I'm discussing this right now is there are some in the Obama camp who don't think it's fair that Kucinich is taking as much heat regarding Paul, as Obama has regarding McClurkin.

I am therefore suspicious. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Obama has nothing to do with this thread.
This thread is about someone who is way more dangerous than what many people who like him think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Katzenkavalier, you're making it sound as though this
board is crawling with Ron Paul supporters.

It's not.

Even you have noticed, I'm sure, that a number of Kucinich supporters are now questioning their support of him after what his wife said about Paul.

I don't understand who you're trying to reach.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. It's a general feeling, not only from the support
Paul has had at DU in the past, but in the real world. The guy has caught the attention of many people from all walks of life (I'm telling you, I've found a Ron Paul supporter almost everywhere I've been in the last 6 months or so, including a strip club- a stripper for Ron Paul), and I believe it is because they don't know what that man is really all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. LOL. Well, then hand out copies of your posts at the
strip club.

In all seriousness, I agree that there are way too many people misinformed about Paul's terrible positions, aside from war.

But I certainly don't think it's an epidemic here at DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. No, not at all
My comments weren't meant to be so personal and any use of the word "you" was meant to be a more general "you" and not cboy in particular. I'm just saying that one doesn't have to mention his name, even in response to someone who has mentioned his name. And that one shouldn't mention his name, at least not in a complimentary fashion

And I'm sorry to hear the backstory on your involvement in this. I see no reason to be suspicious of you based on that. Whether it's fair or not, Obama is one of the leading candidates for the presidency. Of course the media (and most everybody else) is going to pay more attention to Obama. Some supporters are a bit too passionate to recognize reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
38. Yes - though he opposes the war for the wrong reasons (like LePen and Pat Buchanan)
But some people do seem to like him; have even said they'd vote for him against some Dems; have suggested a Paul-Kucinich ticket.

In my opinion, Paul is pure evil (like most RW-ers). Even the Devil can be accidentally right on some issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
26. So, the Civil Rights Act is bad for Business. Typical Randian freemarket bullshit.
And yes, it's a cloak for racism, racism denial.

Denying the effects of institutional racism - "it's not as bad as it's been portrayed".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
28. Thanks for this, Katzenkavalier
excellent information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
36. Ron Paul , building a bridge to the 18th century......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. The Age of Enlightenment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
37. Thank you for this
I never supported the guy but I know a few people who need to see this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
40. Just the tip of the iceberg with this whackjob...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC