Why do some liberals support Ron Paul?

[portlandatheist]

By "liberals" I mean this:
support raising the minimum wage
support providing Health Care to those who cannot afford it
Support funding education as much or more than we do now
Support urban planning and zoning laws
Support strong regulations protecting the environment
Believe the UN is generally a good institution and worthy endevour
Support labor laws
Are against free trade and unregulated capitalism in general
support Social Security
support gun control
etc., etc.

The purpose of this thread isn't to debate the pros and cons of the above positions, but rather, if a person has values similar to the above, why on Earth would they vote for Ron Paul??? Perhaps in the eyes of many voters,he has become their single issue candidate similar to an anti abortion candidate where nothing else really matters so people who are obsessed with their one issue such as repeal of the reserve banking system or getting out of Iraq, Dr. Paul is their man and forget everything else they guy stands for. As far as I can tell, the guy is a right winger to the extreme.

[ServiceSoon]

the war ?

[NeoRicen]

Good bloody question!

I honestly think it's Iraq, and his opposition to the war on drugs. Also there's his support of habeas corpus. However most Democratic candidates have similar positions (Kucinich and Gravel are opposed to the war on drugs, don't think the others are).

I think a lot of his new supporters (I'd imagine a lot of his old supporters are probably embarrassed by them) are very simple one issue voters, or at least only vote on a very small amount of issues. Take Oliver from this forum for example. He's gone on a Ron Paul rampage with his avatar and a lot of things he says. However he admits to being a Kucinich supporter. Even Kucinich suggested Ron Paul as a potential running mate. However the two differ entirely on the vast majority of issues. Except drugs, Iraq and habeas corpus. Kucinich supports a lot of the positions you posted, Ron Paul opposes them.

Not to mention Ron Paul isn't even a good social Libertarian which a lot of his new supporters and liberals are. He's anti-abortion, anti-gay in a lot of positions and has horrible positions on church/state issues.

Ron Paul is simply a conservative, that's it, he's not a libertarian (he is economically but not socially, which is what a conservative is after all), he's not a liberal. He's an old fashioned conservative and it baffles the hell out of me why he's getting a lot of the support he's getting. Opposition to war is NOT a Liberal position (I'm a liberal but I'm still not going to claim that it is), it just happens this time around support and opposition have ended up correlated that way. It can and probably will switch around in the future. It's just that Ron Paul has maintained his position (one of his better traits I suppose) from war to war.

Also you have to consider the fact a lot of the people who are supporting him are in fact Libertarians, not liberals, who have an odd domination over the Internet and artificially inflate his real-world appeal, which while still increasing is still low.

[portlandatheist]

yeah that's the thing I don't get, obviously there's the war in Iraq, but it's not like he's the only one, there is Kucinich after all. How somebody could support both or the notion that they could be running mates is simply bizarre. I'm way too liberal to back Ron Paul and way too conservative to back Kucinich as I'm sure many others are, conservatives and liberals alike. And as you say, he's not even a good Libertarian option, I think he opposed some gay adoption bill and like you said, socially he's simply not on the side of Libertarians.

[Praktik]

To be honest - I think the biggest reason Ron Paul is attracting supporters from strange places is simply the way he speaks: plainly.

Sure, he's out there on some things - but he's straight up about it isn't he? In the age of carefully manicured talking ken dolls dredging up sound bites about "moving forward" "making america stronger" and so on, well Ron Paul can sound pretty damn refreshing.

I think it's the growing distaste that people have with "regular" politicians and how Ron Paul, talking openly about the war on drugs or some other "taboo" subject, can seem like a breath of fresh air.

I myself am a litte wary - some of his supporters are not the friendliest bunch - I'm talking about his old friends... not the truther come latelies or the anti-war liberals/progressives/what have you... you know the ones..

Ya...


those ones...

[NeoRicen]

I was watching a video with Paul about health care and while I strongly disagreed with pretty much everything he said there was a strange attractiveness to it. It's the way he speaks there's something about it that makes it sound like he's right regardless of what he's saying. It's hard to explain but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a factor. I suppose he seems nicer than a lot of the other candidates (even if his policies aren't nice).

[Praktik]

Remember that moment early in the Republican primary season during that debate when Ron Paul got into that little tiff with Giuliani over the reason for 9/11?

I think both men came out of that positively - Giuliani's base got tossed some "they did it because they hate us" red meat and Paul came across as brave enough to say what few politicians risk saying: namely, that Osama and crew did it as a result of American foreign policy and political games played in the region going back decades.

I think thats when Paul really came up on the mainstream political radar - and I'm sure his candor at that moment was appreciated by many on the "traditional" left.

But listen to the guy on the gold standard, and you gotta think "woah". Nonetheless, Paul's stance on the return to the gold standard is really just a modern recurrence of the kind of drive that led to the "free silver" movement of the 19th century. Monetary policy has always been fodder for CT's and there's always a few fools out there with their "magic bullets" they believe will "fix" America once and for all. Check out Hofstadter's essay on the "free silver" movement (its in a collection of essays that has "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" as the title feature) and tell me if you don't see similar themes in the fiscal ideas of Paul and his libertarian brethren.

[Suddenly]

I was watching a video with Paul about health care and while I strongly disagreed with pretty much everything he said there was a strange attractiveness to it. It's the way he speaks there's something about it that makes it sound like he's right regardless of what he's saying. It's hard to explain but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a factor. I suppose he seems nicer than a lot of the other candidates (even if his policies aren't nice).


Sort of like how a homeopath tells people what they want to hear, that there are simple solutions to their problems and that the current established practices are a result of some level of corruption seeking to supress all these nifty alternative cures.

[Mister Agenda]

The war has become a single-issue vote for some progressives, and they may see Paul as having a better chance than Kucinich (though still slim). There's plenty for them to object to, especially on church-state separation (where I think his faith gets the better of his reading skills) and women's reproductive rights, but he may be slightly more acceptable than several of his Neocon rivals on such issues.

On the other hand, he's for habeus corpus, against the Patriot Act, thinks homosexuality (and heterosexuality) in the military shouldn't be an issue unless it's disruptive, doesn't think the federal government should define marriage (somewhat mixed there as he also thinks states should be able to do so), is against the War on Drugs and for industrial hemp.

It isn't that surprising, I think, that some progressives would rather vote for an anti-war Old Conservative who is predictable than an 'all options are on the table' Democrat that they're not sure of.

[Oliver]

In the age of carefully manicured talking ken dolls dredging up sound bites about "moving forward" "making america stronger" and so on, well Ron Paul can sound pretty damn refreshing.


*lol* :D That's actually the best point about Paul. He gives a X about
what the voters like to hear. In fact, he's saying the same things
he did say in his last presidential race ...

Difference is - it's more popular now since "Ken Dolls" are boring and
untrustworthy.

The only political point he changed his mind about is capital punishment.
And I'm not that mad about that decision.

[NeoRicen]

That's another thing, candidates never changing their mind is for some reason a good thing. It's a HORRIBLE thing. If you have maintained the same positions for decades then it says to me that you're a complete ideologue who only cares about their ideology and not the realities of the day, which is exactly what Ron Paul is.

The one question I want to ask any political candidate (especially Ron Paul) is: "If your policies aren't working, what would you do?"

It's a stupid question is some ways because they'll always give me the answer I want to hear but very few of them will do what they say if the situation calls for it. Just look at Bush. I have a very strong feeling that if Ron Paul's economic policies fail to work then he wouldn't change them. He's too ideological.

And the other thing that gets me is how much people focus on how candidates present themselves, I don't give a crap if they're a Ken Doll or not. I don't care how plainly they speak. I don't give a damn how refreshing they are. If their policies are complete crap, like Ron Paul's, then the candidate isn't getting my vote.

For example, our current PM is a very rehearsed, very controlling politician type. But I don't care, I don't vote on how they are like that. I voted for him because I preferred his policies, even if his media appearances are so rehearsed and 'fake'.

[leftysergeant]

I'm not really sure that the liberals are buying into RP's woo-woo in the number that his supporters would like to claim. Over on the Randi Rhodes Show forums, one of the more vicious twoofers, one who seems to like to put me down as "not a real liberal," has been posting all sorts of pro-RP spam under the screen name "falseflagop."

I think the whole RP phenomenon is, to some extent, a flase-flag op.

Generally, he is being treated like a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah on that board.

[SDC]

I'm not really sure that the liberals are buying into RP's woo-woo in the number that his supporters would like to claim. Over on the Randi Rhodes Show forums, one of the more vicious twoofers, one who seems to like to put me down as "not a real liberal," has been posting all sorts of pro-RP spam under the screen name "falseflagop."

I think the whole RP phenomenon is, to some extent, a flase-flag op.

Generally, he is being treated like a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah on that board.

Hmm... that depends on the denomination. I've been at Jewish events at which there appeared to be special "treif [non-kosher] tables." As in, "Hey, Treif Lady, come over here with the pigs in blankets!"

[dudalb]

Because some liberals and progressives are one issue voters.
In the end, I think most of the lefties who are flirting with Paul will think twice and realise that although he might be right on the War he is Wrong about just about everything else from a Liberal point of view.

[CaptainManacles]

I think a lot of this "doesn't care what people want to hear" thing is just an act, ironically. He knows people want to hear a breath of fresh air, and hear someone who is not afraid to speak his mind, so that's the image he projects. But he is very careful to word things in a specific way and to avoid issues that might really reveal his true colors. For example, his stance that school prayer issues/religious education should be left up to local governments. His pro-alternative medicine anti-GMF stance.

[SDC]

I think a lot of this "doesn't care what people want to hear" thing is just an act, ironically. He knows people want to hear a breath of fresh air, and hear someone who is not afraid to speak his mind, so that's the image he projects. But he is very careful to word things in a specific way and to avoid issues that might really reveal his true colors. For example, his stance that school prayer issues/religious education should be left up to local governments. His pro-alternative medicine anti-GMF stance.

There was some Hollywood old timer who supposedly said something like, "All you need is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." By which I mean to say, you are right; this is his act, his angle. "I'm just a plain-speaking..."

[CaptainManacles]

There was some Hollywood old timer who supposedly said something like, "All you need is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." By which I mean to say, you are right; this is his act, his angle. "I'm just a plain-speaking..."

I have to say, I was quite hooked on it for awhile. End the war on drugs, gays in the military, cut foreign aid, cut entitlement programs, cut all levels of spending. I was somewhat wary just because of his anti-Isreal stance and his insistance that 9/11 was our fault, ect. But the more I actually looked into it and read the bills he sponsored and the stances he took even just on his webpage, it became obvious he was a nut. Not only because of what stances he took, but the way he went about it. His trying to pass a bill to ban a NAU is a great example. Okay, even if that wasn't insane, what would that bill accomplish? If congress had enough support to create a NAU then they would have enough support to override his bill.

He did the same thing on alternative medicines. His logic behind creating a bill that would basically allow head-on to come outright and claim it cures cancer without fear of retrobution was some conspiracy theory style crap about vitamins being banned in Europe or something, as if, even if that were to happen, somehow his bill would stop that? He seems to have more ideology then brains. Claiming to be a constitutionalist is like claiming to be pro-freedom, it completely ignores the swath of issues surrounding the constitution and it tells us nothing except that you clearly don't understand them. The issues surrounding interpreting the constitution are very complex, and reduce down to philosophy of language issues that haven't been solved over the last 3,000 years by people who studied it their whole lives. Saying "it's just obvious" allows you to interpret it in whatever way suits you best. Hence, his belief that religious indoctorination is okay and constitutional.

[dudalb]

The Ron Paul Movement is a Personality based movement. It's almost like his policies don't matter,that a lot of his ideas are kooky does not matter, he is a sincere,decent guy and that all that matters to his followers.
This is ,of course, a very dangerous attitude to take.
What is ironic is that a lot of long time Libertarians,although they generally support Paul,are a LOT more critical of him then the more recent Paulistas.

[maxpower1227]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

[ServiceSoon]

The thread went from, why do liberals support RP to, why RP is bad/wrong. For all the crap you give Oliver I have to ask....Who is spamming now?

[gtc]

The Ron Paul Movement is a Personality based movement. It's almost like his policies don't matter,that a lot of his ideas are kooky does not matter, he is a sincere,decent guy and that all that matters to his followers.
This is ,of course, a very dangerous attitude to take.
What is ironic is that a lot of long time Libertarians,although they generally support Paul,are a LOT more critical of him then the more recent Paulistas.

It reminds me a hell of a lot of an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson. She started out in the conservative party (called The Liberals) but was expelled for spouting racist crap. She eventually formed her own party and did quite well in a couple of elections. Like Ron Paul, there wasn't a conspiracy theory that she didn't at least entertain but Ron seems to be smarter than her (he hasn't actually come out with racist comments).

One thing that inerests me is that her support in the polls was much less than her support at the ballot box. It seems that many people refused to admit to wanting to vote for her. I would suspect that something similar was happening with Ron Paul, but Pauline Hanson had a much bigger media profile so I am not sure that many voters even know he exists.

[Suddenly]

The thread went from, why do liberals support RP to, why RP is bad/wrong. For all the crap you give Oliver I have to ask....Who is spamming now?

All part of the answer. The answer, in simple terms, is that the liberals that support Ron Paul do so "because they are fixated on few issues, have fallen into a cult of personality, and have not managed to educate themselves to see who and what Ron Paul stands for."

[portlandatheist]

All part of the answer. The answer, in simple terms, is that the liberals that support Ron Paul do so "because they are fixated on few issues, have fallen into a cult of personality, and have not managed to educate themselves to see who and what Ron Paul stands for."
I think that sums it up quite well!

[ZenFountain]

You could cynically support Paul knowing he would immediately order troops out Afghanistan and Iraq, while knowing that he has no power beyond the veto pen affect lawmaking. In fact spending would probably increase under a Paul administration because congress would have to stack bills up with pork to veto proof everything.

[ServiceSoon]

All part of the answer. The answer, in simple terms, is that the liberals that support Ron Paul do so "because they are fixated on few issues, have fallen into a cult of personality, and have not managed to educate themselves to see who and what Ron Paul stands for."Thanks for making it simple for me. You know, I am one of those RP supporters who hasn't managed to educate myself. There are many one issue voters. There is nothing wrong with that. You will never find the perfect candidate. I don't think RP is perfect.

So your opinion is people support RP because they are stupid and brainwashed by the mass media/internet?

You could cynically support Paul knowing he would immediately order troops out Afghanistan and Iraq, while knowing that he has no power beyond the veto pen affect lawmaking. In fact spending would probably increase under a Paul administration because congress would have to stack bills up with pork to veto proof everything.I'm cynical if I support RP to bring the troops home? By that logic every voter in the entire world is cynical because they support the candidate who supports the same ideas as them.

I assume you can provide documentation that earmarking would increase due to the habits of a conservative spender or is this just a guess?

[ZenFountain]

I'm cynical if I support RP to bring the troops home? By that logic every voter in the entire world is cynical because they support the candidate who supports the same ideas as them.

No, but a lot of people seem to be hopping on the Paul bandwagon on that issue alone while half heartedly endorsing the rest of his platform or simply ignoring it.

I assume you can provide documentation that earmarking would increase due to the habits of a conservative spender or is this just a guess?

Perhaps you have been in a coma the last 11 months? When congress does battle with the veto pen, their weapon of choice is to legislate bad bills that are veto proof. Paul would likely be more antagonistic than Bush has been with a Democratic congress on budgetary matters. How can I provide documentation for earmarking that is predicated on future events?

[ServiceSoon]

Perhaps you have been in a coma the last 11 months? When congress does battle with the veto pen, their weapon of choice is to legislate bad bills that are veto proof. Paul would likely be more antagonistic than Bush has been with a Democratic congress on budgetary matters. How can I provide documentation for earmarking that is predicated on future events?I don't know...you made the claim so it is up to you to prove it. I ain't doing your research for you :p If you can't find something that doesn't mean you are wrong. This is going to be a hard one.

[Suddenly]

Thanks for making it simple for me. You know, I am one of those RP supporters who hasn't managed to educate myself. There are many one issue voters. There is nothing wrong with that. You will never find the perfect candidate. I don't think RP is perfect.

So your opinion is people support RP because they are stupid and brainwashed by the mass media/internet?


As to the great mass of people ignorant of his writing "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin," comments from the early 90s Rodney King mess, his embrace of various forms of conspiracy theory, his belief that seperation of church and state is a myth the leads him to advocate stripping the federal courts of any ability to enforce such seperation. That sort of thing. His failure to publicly disavow the strong support he gets from white supremacist groups is another. His comments about the New World Order.

When I say most are uninformed I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have a rather low opinion of a fully informed Ron Paul supporter.





I hope they are ignorant of his larger stance. Those that support this

[fuelair]

By "liberals" I mean this:
support raising the minimum wage
support providing Health Care to those who cannot afford it
Support funding education as much or more than we do now
Support urban planning and zoning laws
Support strong regulations protecting the environment
Believe the UN is generally a good institution and worthy endevour
Support labor laws
Are against free trade and unregulated capitalism in general
support Social Security
support gun control
etc., etc.

The purpose of this thread isn't to debate the pros and cons of the above positions, but rather, if a person has values similar to the above, why on Earth would they vote for Ron Paul??? Perhaps in the eyes of many voters,he has become their single issue candidate similar to an anti abortion candidate where nothing else really matters so people who are obsessed with their one issue such as repeal of the reserve banking system or getting out of Iraq, Dr. Paul is their man and forget everything else they guy stands for. As far as I can tell, the guy is a right winger to the extreme.

Just asking - is it ok for me to still be a liberal but think the UN is a piece of crap (as it functions) and guns are my friend? And think Ron Paul is an idjit.:confused::confused::confused::jaw-dropp

[portlandatheist]

Just asking - is it ok for me to still be a liberal but think the UN is a piece of crap (as it functions) and guns are my friend? And think Ron Paul is an idjit.:confused::confused::confused::jaw-dropp
Most definitely! :)

[Mister Agenda]

As to the great mass of people ignorant of his writing "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin," comments from the early 90s Rodney King mess, his embrace of various forms of conspiracy theory, his belief that seperation of church and state is a myth the leads him to advocate stripping the federal courts of any ability to enforce such seperation. That sort of thing. His failure to publicly disavow the strong support he gets from white supremacist groups is another. His comments about the New World Order.

When I say most are uninformed I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have a rather low opinion of a fully informed Ron Paul supporter.

I hope they are ignorant of his larger stance. Those that support this

Perhaps the informed believe RP when he claims he was not the author of that statement?

Mitt wants to double the size of Gitmo. I believe if someone were interested in researching it they would find some bad people have contributed to his campaign. Why is Ron the only candidate to get this level of scrutiny?

[Suddenly]

Perhaps the informed believe RP when he claims he was not the author of that statement?

It was just in his newsletter signed by him. I'm sure if it wasn't his you can show me something, like a later issue where he retracted the statements soon after they came out. Even taking his claim that the newsletter was a total fraud on his subscribers, he was taking responsibility for content, and I would hope that the people that newsletter was meant to reach would loudly complain about such racist content.

That is, unless the audience he his minion was writing for was likely to agree.

It is a nice defense sto his racism seeing it is the only one he could possibly have. Who cares if there is no evidence and it makes no sense.



Mitt wants to double the size of Gitmo. I believe if someone were interested in researching it they would find some bad people have contributed to his campaign. Why is Ron the only candidate to get this level of scrutiny?

He isn't in general in the mainstream media. There aren't ill-informed silly Mittbots starting thread after thread of silly nonsense all over the internet. Mitt comes from a church that was explicitly racist while he was there. I'm not voting for him, he's not relevant to Ron Paul's wanting to take the constitutionally dubious step of preventing federal enforcement of the 14th amendment. He's not relevant to Ron Paul failing to publicly disavow support from racist groups.

[ServiceSoon]

Suddenly ;) I feel like this conversation is a waste of time for both of us. He's not relevant to Ron Paul failing to publicly disavow support from racist groups.He did just that on PBS's NOW program. "I do not want support from racist groups."
He isn't in general in the mainstream media. There aren't ill-informed silly Mittbots starting thread after thread of silly nonsense all over the internet. Mitt comes from a church that was explicitly racist while he was there. I'm not voting for him, he's not relevant to
Good redirection of the topic of discussion and moving to redirect the blame to RP. Its a double standard...admit it.
As to the great mass of people ignorant of his writing "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin," comments from the early 90s Rodney King mess,Pulling out the race card are ya? What was he talking about (i.e. what was the topic of the discussion) when he made those comments?

Perhaps he was discussing the problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html?ei=5090&en=57e0d1ceebcbc209&ex=1300510800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1183796444-A3v1V+XCDYqmrulBBFBr8A&pagewanted=all) with black culture.

Perhaps he was discussing the welfare state (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-5.html)?

By your standards Bill Cosby (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billcosbypoundcakespeech.htm) is also a racist?

Can RP discuss facts relating to race and not be called a racist?

Ron Paul's wanting to take the constitutionally dubious step of preventing federal enforcement of the 14th amendment.
Like the second amendment, if you read the federalist papers, understand the time period the law was passed, and avoid cognitive dissonance you will discover how the 14th is being abused. Laws aren't perfect...this is an example of that fact.

RP on the problem with forced integration. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html) I admit he isn't perfect. Nobody is, but he has a lot of good things about him and he isn't a racist.

Ron Paul quote of the day, “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

[Suddenly]

Good redirection of the topic of discussion and moving to redirect the blame to RP. Its a double standard...admit it.
Pulling out the race card are ya? What was he talking about (i.e. what was the topic of the discussion) when he made those comments?
What double standard? The media ignores him because he is quite irrelevent. If he becomes relevant, he's going to get crushed.

Yeah, I'm real slick moving a Ron Paul discussion to being about Ron Paul. His words are clear, and no matter your hand waiving they are quite awful. No, Bill Cosby addressing racial issues does not make it better that Ron Paul claims any black person in Los Angeles is a terrorist.

If you can't see the difference between a Bill Cosby speaking to the black community about the need for better parenting and higher standards in life, and Ron Paul saying you can tell if a person is a terrorist based on skin color, then you aren't worth talking to.



Ron Paul quote of the day, “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

Suddenly quote of the the day: When people with militia backgrounds start whining about the 14th amendment and civil rights registration as being somehow racist, those that take their word at face value are useful idiots.

Ron Paul would have you think that deep seeded racial issues can only be solved by pretending they don't exist. Otherwise intelligent people fall for this. This is curious.

[ZenFountain]

Ron Paul quote of the day, “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

Another classic RP befuddlement that fails to redress the underlying issue, instead relying on libertarian axioms with seemingly infinite utility. So let's take the case of desegregation, which RP was against. You have schools that are by law segregated in the Jim Crow south, federal government moves in and desegregates them. RP's position is that since it was the government forcing the desegregation, government is still seeing people as "groups" and thereby perpetuating racism. That argument doesn't address the fundamental point that it was the people who wanted segregation in the first place and had the federal government not stepped in, you would still have segregated schools. By RP's standard that's fine since it's what the people wanted, i.e. the government cannot force someone to not be racist.

His argument also fails to address the difference between forced diversity and allowed diversity. Examples of forced diversity would be forcing schools to have a certain percentage of minorities. Allowed diversity would simply be making it unlawful for a public school to segregate by race. I see RP's statement as little more than tacit approval of states rights position (code talk for Jim Crow) under the guise of freedom and more words.

[headphase]

I don't understand it either. I guess some people are one-issue voters.

[ServiceSoon]

What double standard? The media ignores him because he is quite irrelevent. If he becomes relevant, he's going to get crushed.
Looking back it appeared that you said bad people have donated to Mitt's campgain, but it hasn't been mentioned in the media. According to some polls Mitt is a top tier candidate. So it would only make sense to hold Mitt to the same litmus test as we are holding RP too. That is why I said it was a double standard. I disagree that bad people have given Mitt money because the only person giving MItt money is himself.
Yeah, I'm real slick moving a Ron Paul discussion to being about Ron Paul. His words are clear, and no matter your hand waiving they are quite awful. No, Bill Cosby addressing racial issues does not make it better that Ron Paul claims any black person in Los Angeles is a terrorist.
Can you please show me where RP said "any black person in Los Angeles is a terrorist?"
If you can't see the difference between a Bill Cosby speaking to the black community about the need for better parenting and higher standards in life, and Ron Paul saying you can tell if a person is a terrorist based on skin color, then you aren't worth talking to.
Again, you are going to have to show me where RP said that. I'm almost positive that you are putting words in his mouth. If I'm not worth talking to then ignore me. It's really that simple.
Suddenly quote of the the day: When people with militia backgrounds start whining about the 14th amendment and civil rights registration as being somehow racist, those that take their word at face value are useful idiots.
You can't quote yourself, that is man law. I don't make this stuff up...ok I made it up.
Ron Paul would have you think that deep seeded racial issues can only be solved by pretending they don't exist. Otherwise intelligent people fall for this. This is curious.Thanks for calling me intelligent.

[Suddenly]

Can you please show me where RP said "any black person in Los Angeles is a terrorist?"




A collection of info. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Some background:

After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories about the Federal Reserve and the money system and a tireless advocacy of a return to the gold standard—a longtime Ron Paul hobby horse. The Ron Paul Political Report would come to feature in the stable of "underground" publications and photocopied "zines" that fed the nascent "patriot movement" that arose in the early 1990s, spurred by anger over federal government actions in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and by fear of a supposed "New World Order." Indeed, Paul changed the name of the newsletter to the Ron Paul Survival Report around 1993 in what we may presume to be an effort to tap into the survivalist sentiments then peaking among the radical right wing.


Okay, to the meat: (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793)

Every time I read this it cracks me up more that people take him seriously...

A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it.


Heh. Really we could stop here, but why?

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

"Good sense?" He did a good job of painting it that some people my conclude but not someone like me, except for calling it "good sense." Whoops... he goes beyond LA..

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



Strong finish:

The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.


Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.


Really.

Blacks have "civil riqhts,"

How dreadful.

preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts,
Which obviously cause crime...

black bureaucracies,
Wha?

black mayors,

Damn democracy
black curricula in schools,
Slavery? What slavery?

black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors,

Voting booth?

black scholorships and colleges,

err... you may want to look up the whole segregation thing as to how this all came about.

hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.


Yes, the monolithic "black agenda."

No... No racism here... all crime is caused by a few government contracts going to black owned firms, BET, and Grambling having the nerve to ban whites during the Jim Crow era.

[the escape plan]

Ron Paul's voting record usually mirrors a voting record of liberal Democrats, but I doubt its that. From my experience with Paul supporters, they really don't know his voting record. For example, Paul has voted no on many free trade bills in his time in Congress even though he spouts about being for free trade.

My guess: Ron Paul youtube clips and Ron Paul spam bots.

[Distracted1]

I am a Liberal, and I think the more press Ron Paul gets the better.
On many issues I could not agree with him more, and I like the way he presents his position. I nearly cheered when he suggested that our own policies might have something to do with 9/11- during a Republican presidential debate no less! I will not vote for him, but it is great to see a candidate who will discuss these kinds of sacred cows, and doubly great that he is using the Republican presidential primaries to do it.
Go Ron Paul!, Go!, Just don't get elected President!

[NeoRicen]

Ron Paul's voting record usually mirrors a voting record of liberal Democrats
Umm, no it doesn't.

[the escape plan]

Umm, no it doesn't.
Maybe 'usually' was too strong of a word, but he does vote against school vouchers, tort reform, and the war.

[Mister Agenda]

A collection of info. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Some background:

Okay, to the meat: (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793)

Every time I read this it cracks me up more that people take him seriously...

Heh. Really we could stop here, but why?

"Good sense?" He did a good job of painting it that some people my conclude but not someone like me, except for calling it "good sense." Whoops... he goes beyond LA..

Strong finish:

Really.

How dreadful.
Which obviously cause crime...
Wha?

Damn democracy Slavery? What slavery?

Voting booth?

err... you may want to look up the whole segregation thing as to how this all came about.

Yes, the monolithic "black agenda."

No... No racism here... all crime is caused by a few government contracts going to black owned firms, BET, and Grambling having the nerve to ban whites during the Jim Crow era.

This issue has been addressed:

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

You can believe what you want, but there is at least some doubt Ron Paul wrote that. It may actually speak worse for him as a candidate that he was foolish enough to allow things to be printed in his name without personally reviewing it.