“The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has “no idea” who might have written inflammatory comments such as “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks”—statements he now repudiates.”
My bold Ron had no idea what the head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and its founder an Austrian Economist Group whose views Ron still backs was writing in his name?
He had no idea that what the same person who was his congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, and was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates was writing in his name in in his newsletter? The Buck stops here Harry Truman said Ron needs at the very least to show he can run a business and when employees of his business destroy his brand name that he can punish them if he wants to be President. That is assuming that Ron is really not a racist.
Why would we want a President even more out of touch than Senile Reagan was during Iran Contra? Answer me that Paulites:)
“Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul’s chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
“Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,””
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
My bold If a *cough * friend took advantage of me like that to run his own racist political agenda that is counter my own political agenda I would not let him near me and would sue his pants off. I would not let him keep profiting off me. Assuming that I was really not a racist of course.
“To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman’s recent writings and audio recordings.”
Go on explain why if Ron isn’t a racist he still has close ties to the guy who wrecked his reputation?
“Besides Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul’s wife Carol, Paul’s daughter Lori Pyeatt,”
Why didn’t his daughter or wife tell Ron about what was being printed in his name? Do they hate Ron? Or are they also Racists?
“The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country.”
My bold now we have a motive! CASH! silly me its freakin obvious! Has Ron and his family returned any of the tainted money? I would if I were not a racist.
As far as choosing between Ron and Obama goes which is what some of Ron’s supporters have been asking people at the Lake recently goes what part of choosing the lesser of two evils is still EVIL don’t they get?
I am not conceding that Ron is less evil than Obama given his racism I think if given the opportunity then Ron if elected President would be more evil.
The Greatest trick the Devil pulled off is convincing the world that he does not exist Ron is not the devil he wishes! The devil would be insulted by the comparison of such obvious attempts to paint over Ron’s *cough* small problem.



119 Comments

admiting he is the lesser of two evils is a good first-step good for you keep-up the good work
he opposes e verify and depotations- yet no love
bring on the deportations BigO, you have support
yes, I think many Americans–at least at FDL–seem to agree that we don’t want Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Barack Obama but that leaves the question of who? I mentioned about a week ago of a site americanselect.org. I revisited it today and they have added videos of people from various cities: St. Louis, Houston, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, etc. The premise of the site is that people will be able to use it to choose candidates to put on the ballot in 2012 including the president. BUT I have not been able to uncover who is funding the site. They have a Q&A section and I went there and asked regarding who is funding it and who is designing i.t I found that 65 other people have asked the same question and they are getting the runaround too. Money is being poured into the site, you can tell from the design of it and now these videos from most of the major cities in the USA.
reality drives me to believe that there wil not be additional choices
it is Obama/Romney vs Paul
Freaky corporatists or a freaky capitalist
i will take the capatalist, corporations are the problem Pauls an anti- corporatist
OK. So the Libertarian Right has a candidate. Good on them! Lucky suckers!
Some day we will too.
a lot of the ron paul support around here has the smell of astroturf from his organization and i am not sure why it is not moderated more.
he is not anticorporatist, and it simply absurd to say so.
americanselect is another front for bloomberg like unity2008
i would add that the goofy ronpaul tolerance is probably how they justify the firebagger slur.
if this blog were sane it would be promoting greens and other lefties not teabaggers.
you have admitted in another thread you are a dailypaul person. why are you and the other paulites astroturfing here? We are not right wing libertarians and dont come here to read you.
if i believed in lesser evil, dailypaul member I would vote for obama.
Yes, and Obama is a “terrorist” because he was associated with Bill Ayers. Grow up!!!
Oh, really? What if you had been tortured by the US War/Torture complex? Would you still say this? What if you had lost a leg, and your mother, to an American drone, though you and your mother had not an ounce of terrorism impulses in your bodies? Would you still say this? What if you were a Palestinian? Would you still say this?
If the reason article is to be believed, it seems clear enough that Paul is lying about “having no idea” who wrote “inflammatory comments” in his newsletter, and that does raise legitimate questions as to what he really believes, and thus what he’d do as President.
I used to read the Rockwell report, for a while, and don’t remember anything racist about it. Here’s their current articles:
This matches what I vaguely recall – stuff about “real” money, and personal freedom, including the freedom of young girls not to serve as a guinea pigs for gardasil profiteers. I don’t see anything about race, much less see anything racist, there.
So, if we assume Lew Rockwell was saying some racist stuff during the time period that Ron Paul hired him, it seems likely to me that this was not his core message. And it also raises the question of how much people should hold Paul accountable.
Jessie Jackson used to spit in white people’s food. AFAIK, no Democrat has ever condemned him for that. In fact, the Democratic Party allowed him to run for President. He has a son who’s a Congressman. Did Jesse Jackson Jr. ever repudiate his father, the racist who used to spit in white people’s food? Since Obama is a Democrat, it’s a good guess that he, also, has never condemned Jackson for his racism. Ergo, consistent with the sort of reasoning we find in this diary, Obama is a racist, also. But, then, we have a harder task of figuring out who is more evil, racist Paul or racist Obama. You claim Obama is less evil, but perhaps you should answer my questions in my opening paragraph, before you make this claim, again.
I’m not well versed on Jackson’s career, but I know he’s a long-time civil rights activist. Should I somehow completely disregard Jesse Jackson’s positive motivations, and positive efforts, because he’s a flawed human being (not to mention a little gross, at least in his wayward younger years)?
I say “no”, and personally had no problem with him running for President. Would I accept an invitation for dinner, from him? Well, ah,…, probably not! Not if he was cooking!! However, as President, he’d have had no reason to invite me dinner, even if I tell a funny 3 legged pig joke.
Besides Ron is too fucking old to fix a toilet let alone the country.
“We are not right wing libertarians and dont come here to read you.”
In other words: “No new ideas are welcome at this site. We just want to talk, talk, talk about all the “bad stuff” Obama and the Republicans are doing and have done. We want to dream that, in five short months, a new Progressive Party with a new Progressive Savior will spring forth, fresh from the loins of a once-great populist movement. We certainly don’t want to seriously challenge Obama by stepping outside of our comfort zones.”
By supporting Ron Paul, people are showing they do indeed have “somewhere to go.” It’s not an idyllic place, but it’s quite tolerable, especially if we can put an end to the wars and restore our civil liberties. People who don’t take the present situation seriously are telling Obama he can order more drones, clamp down on more whistleblowers, ship more jobs overseas, and give the corporations more and more what little we have left. I don’t want to live with the guilt of enabling Obama any longer.
If he were elected I don’t think Ron could get much accomplished, but maybe that is a good thing. Big money would make it difficult for him and others would not go along with him.
That being said, what do I like about Ron Paul? He would surly change or shake up the revolving door where big business leaders and government officials periodically play musical chairs. I can not even imagine how lobbyists would try to influence him. And his appointees would surely be refreshing.
He tries to educate the public about war and is not afraid of being called a weak person or weak on defense. Contrast that with the current president who educates no one about anything, and accepts Republican talking points as though he wrote them himself. Social Security is not an insurance to Obama but an entitlement. Obama is a person who never had a fight in his life and always tried to negotiate himself out of every conflict. He is much too weak. He is not weak on defense just a weak spineless person. That is not a bad thing, but sooner or later you have to stand for something. I don’t think Obama is a leader, but a negotiator. I don’t think he wants to be president, just a negotiator.
Ron Paul never appears to run from conflict and does not accept others talking points. When the conversation turns to war he does not accept the premises offered by the other side. Notice that he never gets called weak on defense. The conversation never becomes defensive with Ron being accused of being weak on defense and him denying it.
6 Obama wars??? I don’t even believe it. He could run as the war president. How do you break the perpetual war cycle of the U.S. if not by educating the public? Ron Paul would begin the process.
I am not a Ron Paul person or a libertarian, but I can not help but see some of his good qualities. I think he would shake up Washington. There are others I would rather see in office.
If Obama gets elected he will think he is doing a great job and people love him. The next Demcratic president will choose Obama’s advisers, the same way he chose Clinton’s. More shit ad-infinitum.
Guilt by association. Wow.
Obama is associated with Robert Rubin, Robert Gates, Rick Warren, Lloyd Blankfein, and Timmy Geithner, among others. Whose associates have done the most damage to our country?
if have yet to hear that arguement made please proceed
what do you call a guy who would allow re-import of drugs–
maybe he does it to help PHARMA? answer- no just crickets
ask why does Obama get tons of bank,MIC, big oil, big insure, wall street money and Ron Paul gets none
lets see ya spin that one
avoid your previous assertion of Obama being the lesser of two evils- but are silent on facts so republican
just look at the canidates availible- why would you choose
Obama/Romney Vs Paul it does not make sense if you want to forward the progressive agenda
very well put- the party is not repairable
you would never hear a true advocate for Paul espose that
why choose Obama/Romney over Ron Paul that does not make sense for the progressive cause
the president in the US has almost dictatoial powers if he/she wanted to use them
RP by 4executive fiat could stop the war, the war on drugs,pardon people imprisoned for victimless crimes, appiont a justice dewpartment that would prosecute fraud on wall street- his choice for resolving the banks wrong bdoing and make the BANKS and investors eat their losses not the people ect ect ect
In this case, Ron Paul is not the lesser of two evils.
Margaret your Mo is to make a statement and then avoid supporting it with facts
of course that argument does not exist as demonstrated by avoidance of war civil liberties ect ect
not a pretty picture margaret
Look at the Republican candidates who will be running in the primary, and try to figure out which one is different. (Hum the Sesame Street song to yourself: “One of these things is not like the others/One of these things just doesn’t belong./Can you tell which one is not like the others/Before I finish this song?”)
Ron Paul is not like the others, in that he would end the wars, stop the War on Drugs (which is a war on the poor and black), return habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, and he questions U.S. support of, and aid to, Israel. Sadly, these are ways in which he differs from Obama, too.
What is the downside of voting for Paul in the Republican primary? We could always vote Green in the general. Why wouldn’t we want an antiwar candidate to run against Obama in the general election?
nobody is telling obama he can do those things, we just are not interested in paul because we are not right wingers. i am voting green or socialist.
look i am not payed to post here all day by the koch brothers like you are.
For republican candidates, I prefer Huntsman since unlike the other republicans, including Paul, he will teach real science in the schools, rather than Creationism, so will Romney.
I wish I were being literally being paid to post 24 hours a day like some people.
Jane on “The Transpartisan Imperative”
I guess you didn’t get the memo.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/13/the-transpartisan-imperative/
I don’t think you speak for Jane. I find your comments snotty and exclusive.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/13/the-transpartisan-imperative/
Bullshit! I have supported my statements over and over with facts. Your MO is to attack the messenger because you can’t defend Ron Paul’s atrocious behavior and ridiculous beliefs. What “proofs” do you require? Links to Ron Paul’s own words denying reproductive freedoms to women and wanting to abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation? How about when he said he would withdraw from the United Nations? How he says he is strongly pro life and an unshakeable foe of abortion, going as far as first endorsing and later introducing the Sanctity of Life Act, specifically designed to overturn Roe v Wade? As for the Civil Rights Act, he opposed it, calling it “Unconstitutional”. He also thinks that LGBT people should be forced back into the closet, saying that “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities“. He’s also said that he would never vote for any legislation that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution so say goodbye to the EPA and with it safe and clean air, water and food, along with social security, medicare, NASA, unemployment benefits, public schools and every other federal program/agency not expressly written into the Constitution. In fact, say goodbye to everything but the military and the post office. Now, do you need more or are you going to even actually read the links I’ve provided? I suggest you do so and then come back and use your oh so capable MOUTH to DEFEND Paul’s beliefs as opposed to insulting everybody who has the temerity to disagree with you about the wisdom of electing your BFF as President of the United States.
And one more thing motormouth: Pointing out what an asshole Paul is does not translate into automatic support for Obama. Only conservatives think in such stark terms. We all know what that says about you.
TCU, I think the general consensus has been a desire to investigate Ron Paul further and an expressed wish that he be able to confront Obama on issues we wish would get a public hearing, and where we agree with him on a political level. On vector’s thread I put economical issues front and center, since those are clearly laid out on Ron Paul’s web site, and I find his free market stance to be completely wrongheaded.
I really do not think that race is an issue which rises to the level of ‘the lesser of two evils’ consideration. (Okay, feel free to bash me on that. I’m of mixed race myself.) There are some considerations of character which flesh out a potential candidate, and to me Ron Paul’s understanding of economic factors trumps issues of personal integrity, on which it is very difficult to make judgments that would determine how a person will behave in office.
Seems to me that bigotry isn’t the right mule to lash in this situation because folk like me will take it as an ad hominem attack, when there are more important practical issues being voiced right now that show Ron Paul to be not the right man for the job. You may very well be correct about his associations present and past as a way of understanding his potential, but once we individually take a look at his positions, I don’t think there would be any danger we’d be persuaded by them.
I still think he should have a chance to voice them, but they are there on his website for all to examine.
Thanks metamars. The fact that Ron Paul wants to end the wars just doesn’t mean shit to a lot of these Democrats. The absence of compassion is astonishing. He also wants to end the drug war and dismantle the prison industrial complex here at home. Again no compassion. Just hateful tribalism.
Oh well. Its a winnowing process and it’s timely and welcome in my opinion.
looks like they are on to the gold standard this week. the gold standard is another bad idea. back during fdr administration, he took us off of it because the wealthy were hoarding it and keeping it off the market. as a result of their hoarding, inflation in this country was terrible, and made the depression worse.
jackson said he once spit in a white persons food, he never indicated it was specifically because the person was white. black servants traditionally did this to people who were racist to them, and abused them going back to the days of slavery.
this is a lefty board, not a right wing board.
transpartisanship or allying on issues we are in agreement on is not voting for libertarians.
so what. i dont invade libertarian boards.
Defend Ron Paul then! All you Ron Paul trolls ever do is attack his detractors, I have never seen one of you mount any defense of him. Like a typical teabagger, all Ron Paul’s cheerleaders do is hurl unfounded and unsupportable accusations because you can’t defend the indefensible. Fine! Support Ron Paul if you wish, that’s absolutely your right but either defend him or stop coming around here pretending to be progressive and calling the rest of us names for not supporting him.
PS: defending Paul never includes badmouthing his detractors.
I could possibly vote for Huntsman but never Paul. Ever.
i have been asking you to enlighten me with your “lefty” argument
you should support ideas not the Left whatever that is
the freemarket here in the us supported by canadian socialism would produce a slightly different result then chrony capitalism but it is hardly anticorporate.
what will paul do to stop another bp oil spill from happening again? would he even ask them to clean it up as obama has?
and since i do think it is justified to associate obamas corporate policies with those people what is your point?
Margaret lets balance your argument that Paul would lets the states decided abortionissues ( it is clear that they are not doing well at the fed) with this
Paul against- Romney/Obama for: War, More War,patriot act, e verify, deportations of immigrants, incarcerating americans for victimless crimes- 60% of prison pop, corporate welfare, horrible free trade agreements, assainating Americans, no habeas, detaining people without trial, attacking Iran, attacking Yemen Attacking Somolia,attacking Libya, attacking Syria, supporting dictators in the middle east, the Banksters/The Fed, government secrecy, MIC, secrecy for corporate cash on contracting, secret interpratationsof any US laws, throwing whistle blowers in jail, prosecuting wiki leaks, taking PHARMA-wall street- insurer- big oil money, has never made a phone call for campaign cash, he is part of no fund raising-, sanctions on Cuba,on and on
Paul wants to take 1.6 trillion from the fed balance budget for ayear with it and talk about reform without the kabuki of the debt ceiling
sounds better than the dems and R’s
balance that scale for me Margaret- dont hurt yourself
why do you support Obama/Romney
Paul against- Romney/ Obama for: War, More War,patriot act, e verify, deportations of immigrants, incarcerating americans for victimless crimes- 60% of prison pop, corporate welfare, horrible free trade agreements, assainating Americans, no habeas, detaining people without trial, attacking Iran, attacking Yemen Attacking Somolia,attacking Libya, attacking Syria, supporting dictators in the middle east, the Banksters/The Fed, government secrecy, MIC, secrecy for corporate cash on contracting, secret interpratationsof any US laws, throwing whistle blowers in jail, prosecuting wiki leaks, taking PHARMA-wall street- insurer- big oil money, has never made a phone call for campaign cash, he is part of no fund raising-, sanctions on Cuba,on and on
here’ is your defense margaret and he called bush awar criminal and stated he lied us into war–as the dems supported war
Paul against- Romney/ Obama for: War, More War,patriot act, e verify, deportations of immigrants, incarcerating americans for victimless crimes- 60% of prison pop, corporate welfare, horrible free trade agreements, assainating Americans, no habeas, detaining people without trial, attacking Iran, attacking Yemen Attacking Somolia,attacking Libya, attacking Syria, supporting dictators in the middle east, the Banksters/The Fed, government secrecy, MIC, secrecy for corporate cash on contracting, secret interpratationsof any US laws, throwing whistle blowers in jail, prosecuting wiki leaks, taking PHARMA-wall street- insurer- big oil money, has never made a phone call for campaign cash, he is part of no fund raising-, sanctions on Cuba,on and on
that you would vote for a the status quo corporatist suprises no one with a brain
correct wrong headed on economic issues
but a hundreds times the corporatist ecomonic policy forwarded by Obama/Romney
agreed???? crickets
paul is a corporatist too. he and his son supported bps right not to clean up the mess they made on are beaches and would deregulate them so they would be more likely to polute them in the future.
he is not the right man for the job
just, by far, the best availible for the job
agreed? or is it Obama/Romney
I support the green or the socialist not obama romney.
Ah, I see. So Jackson only spit in the food of white people who were racist, not randomly. Gotcha. When Jackson says,
“[Spitting into the food] gave me a psychological gratification”, that’s OK, because the “psychological gratification” is only directed at racist white people, not white people in general. Do I have that correct? Can you find me a quote to support your claim?
Should white people do this, also? I mean, why should black people be the only ones spitting in racists’ food? Actually, shouldn’t black people still do this, as it’s “traditional”?
And if Jesse Jackson determines that Obama is a racist, because, e.g., of his Africa related foreign policy, is it hunky dory for him to spit in Obama’s food? Is this the sort of “tradition” that should be preserved, or not?
Here’s another question for you. If MLK spit in white people’s food, even if every last one of them was a hateful racist, do you think white people would have supported him, even half as much?
Also, even though it was “traditional” for southerners to join the Ku Klux Klan, how do we deal with the fact that (AFAIK) the Democratic Party never condemned Senator Robert Byrd? The same arguments that I applied to the Democrats’ tolerance of Jesse Jackson, also applies to Senator Byrd.
Obama made sure they skated would not allow independentscientist in to corraborate the damage
pretty weak Margaret, its apattern with you
the greens and socialist would give us those things too, without privatizing social security, eliminating the epa and public education and reverting to states rights which would discriminate against women and blacks.
the green or the socialists are also an option.
jabade, Badmouthing Obama is also not a defense of Ron Paul. Period. By that logic, the next time you get arrested, just tell your attorney to inform the judge that the arresting officer is an asshole and provide examples of his general assholiness. Let me know how that turns out but you’ll need to let me know when visiting hours at the penitentiary are first. This is the same “argument” I heard over and over during the Democratic primaries: If I dared criticize Obama, I must be a PUMA or a Clintonista, etc. When I asked them to defend what I was criticizing Obama about, they would instead attack Clinton’s record. Ironic, (but not unexpected), that it would now be employed to make the case for Paul. Ideologues often resort to such specious “arguments” I’m still waiting for you to defend Ron Paul. Not attack Obama and not attack me but defend Ron Paul. Balance that scale for me.
Again, you’re just attacking Obama and myself. DEFEND Ron Paul. By definition, a defense does not include attacks on anybody else.
Attacking the messenger is what people without valid arguments use.
“He’s also said that he would never vote for any legislation that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution so say goodbye to the EPA and with it safe and clean air, water and food, along with social security, medicare, NASA, unemployment benefits, public schools and every other federal program/agency not expressly written into the Constitution.”
As Ron Paul is running for President, and not Grand Wizard of the US, would you please explain to us how Ron Paul would accomplish all this as President, only, and thus lacking a Grand Wizard’s power? Will he perhaps borrow the Grand Wizard’s magic wand (on a temporary basis, only), and wave away all those government programs. You’re leaving out the “How” details, which is why nobody who thinks about this takes your “What” details, seriously. The question is not what Ron Paul would do if he were dictator, or Grand Wizard with magical powers, but rather what he would and could do, as President.
In fairness, he could weaken the aggressiveness and honesty of regulatory agencies. That is what the Bush and Obama administrations have done. So, this is a fair question to put to the Ron Paul campaign. Other things you list are just loony, frankly. What’s Ron Paul going to do to stop Social Security checks going out – order the armed forces to invade the Social Security check-printing facility? If he did that, the military would arrest him for mental incompetence*, and he’d be impeached, shortly thereafter.
*I’m not sure, but I think we’ve lost Posse Comitatus, due to Patriot Act and other such insults
I do not support the democratic party.
white racists never support mlk or jackson, and would not have even if blacks had never done this to their abusers.
i do not care whether you are enlightened. i come here to read arguments for advancing left wing causes and candidates not right wing causes and candidates. no one including myself complained about transpartisan support for an audit of the fed because it advanced something both libertarians and progressives are interested in. advancing their candidates is an entirely different issue.
Defend. Ron. Paul. I told you what he said, I wasn’t attempting to evaluate how realistic it is, nor did I claim to. Defend him or stfu!
green and socialist candidates will be available too.
what has Obama done to stop another BP his engery department is allll BP scum you need to gert informed
Paul could not stuff more Bp in than Obama has already done there is no more room
he would eliminate that corrupt agency that does only the bidding of big oil
no thanks margaret
that will change nothing and progressives will maintain their perfect record
Well, I’ve wasted enough time with Ron Paul TROLLS today. You guys absolutely refuse to even attempt to defend him but instead just attack, attack, attack. I have laid out a cogent, rational argument, backed up by citation which is light years ahead of what any of the Paul supporters have done and still you don’t mount a defense. Fine! Pat each other on the back and congratulate yourselves about “winning” the argument. Ideologues aren’t rational creatures and having a conversation with them is pointless. But I know what you are now and your credibility on all other issues now must be suspect. Please feel free to troll though. I know it’s just your nature.
again why would a Ron Paul presidency not yield more progressive progress than Obama/Romney
with almost super majorities your cause went backwards
@Margaret August 20th, 2011 at 10:06 am
I’m defending Ron Paul as presidential candidate, by seriously thinking about what his effect would be on government policy. You want to talk about his voting record, which is generally relevant, and very revealing about what he wants, ideally.
What he wants, ideally, and what we’d get with him as President, are two different things. You don’t want to talk realistically about what a Ron Paul Presidency would be like. You’d rather share your nightmare of what a Ron Paul dictatorship would look like.
That’s not useful, to say the least.
you miss the point, we wants change that stops wars and incarcerating young african americans for victoimless crimes at rates greater than other users purley racist and supporting the corporate prison complex
i can not support your vote for anyone it doesnt matter–it does I want that change not acontinuation of your prison supporting ideas
margaret I am not an idealogue I look at whatvote will bring me the most progressive change
that is Paul not Obama/Romney
Our Capital City, Washington, is the seat of a global financial and military Empire. Have you ever questioned this? I’m not so much asking ThingsComeUndone as everybody reading this. Are you an Imperialist.
Ron Paul is the only declared major party candidate who is not an Imperialist. I urge progressives in the course of this conversation to answer this basic question for themselves. Am I an Imperialist?
In the last election we had a progressive candidate who is not an Imperialist. Dennis Kucinich. He received very little support. Most Democrats supported the Imperialist candidates. If, on reflection, you determine that you approve of and wish to perpetuate the American Empire you will definitely NOT support Ron Paul.
I could start over with “are you a corporatist?” Because again, if you are (and you may well be if you supported the corporate candidates in the last primary) you will NOT support Ron Paul.
My point being – there is more to this discussion than race, choice and partisanship. This is an opportunity to question our assumptions.
Thanks for the post Things. You know I disagree with you but I think you will agree that both sides should be heard. I’m curious. If Paul won the nomination do you think he would defeat Obama?
This is where I disagree. Why should they feel free to astroturf the board with prepared talking points. Why cant we be moderated.
brother the system is so corrupt now- when does the epa do anything to ant corporate polluter–only when they are forced to
the EPA is the legal protection against suit on this polluting criminals
like SEC just got caught shredding docs for wall street
You dont get it? Really???
What you’ll see, over and over again, in the lefty/progressive blogosphere, is that the Ron Paul haters just avoid the subject of his pacifism. They don’t want people to think about it, and it’s implications.
Related to this, I think, is that I rarely see talk of depleted uranium’s horrific birth defects, and you don’t hear much talk about grossly unfair black incarceration due to drug offenses, and the rapes behind prison bars that are all too common.
Because what is more important – these horrors, or the fact that Lew Rockwell used to work for Ron Paul, and wrote racist stuff? What matters more, prison rapes, or the fact that a President Ron Paul can’t abolish the EPA, as much a Congressman Ron Paul would always vote that way.
I’ve wondered how much of the Ron Paul hatred is reflexive tribalism, and how much of it due to shills who want to keep people enslaved in the unreformed Dem/ unreformed Repub paradigm.
Of course, I have no way of knowing.
Sorry. I meant to post this at the bottom of the thread.
on how can he do things –the good stuff he could do is conducive to the powers of the president
wars,drug war ,pardon victimless incarcerated, not attackinganyone ect ect
Ron Paul wants to end the wars start closing bases all over the world 900 use half the money for deficit reduction and half to support SS/med-care-caid
i could only dream of the party doing that
just a dream
in fact paul would bung it up more since he would not have required them to clean it up at all, and would give them less regulatory oversight by eliminating the epa.
attack the messenger but apply the facts to the whole picture and decide
Obama/Romney or Paul
the chice is clear or like you said dont vote for all intent and purpose
sound like the false choice dems try to create between obummer and palin.
@ jbade August 20th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Ridiculous strawman. Nether Paul, Obama, Romney, Perry, or any candidate on the Right are fit or suitable to lead the country or deserving of any vote or support.
Period.
The only thing that’s going to end the Corporate Rule of this country, and stop the wars too by the way, is a people’s movement, not any Presidential candidate.
a moderater would force you to defend your position
like Jane said Obama would not want to debate RonPaul
you would find yourself in the same unsupportable boat
as paul is recognized by all to say what he means
unlike Obama/Romney
i have said just that, but the facts seem to not matter
RonPaul’s revolution embraces the cause of the people against the establishment
anythingelse that is availible is the establishment,
the people raise funds for paul not big everthing for the dems and R’s
well done ,spot on
well thats the problem -you dont want tolook at it realistically- thast makes sense—not
the false choice is obama vs Romney
the true choive is Obama/ Romney vs Paul
Romney and Obama are much closer than either to Paul
I only read this diary to see why so many comments. What a disappointment.
Oh, Margaret, waiting on a defense of Ron Paul’s and that of his sons’ overt racism is like,’waiting on winter’.
Good post, ThingsComeUndone. Thank you.
And thank you, Margaret, for taking on the paultrolls. I’m getting tired of paultrolls already and we still have 14 more months of bullshit to wade through.
I used to think they were kind of cute.
Again, thanks to Margaret, Dameocrat, juliana for helping to explicate Ron Paul and delineate his distinctiveness – A pretty good picture is emerging as to what a Libertarian candidate entails and how it is not going to work for those of us on the Left.
And I’ve got to agree totally with Kelly Canfield – It’s going to take a lot more than just one guy…
i reject your choices.
well when your choice is anything but a fantasy
i would look to support you, till then reality says it will be Obama/Romney or Paul
Just came by to see.
Expected the usual Ron Paul stuff, the pro and anti.
Does anyone, pro or anti, feel this is productive in any way???
Seriously.
And hasn’t this been covered before? So many times before.
(I appreciate what thingscomeundone is doing, but the comments section is like any Paul issue, … but is it productive?)
Seriously folks, is this productive in any way, shape, or form?
Or are the comments section really just a bunch of people uselessly shouting at each other?
Ron Paul
- Wants to return to a gold standard or something similar
-Has ‘issues’ with the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- has saddled the U.S. with is offspring Rand Paul
- Is a Libertarian
I will consider voting for Ron Paul on the day that I think it’s a good idea to let businesses refuse to serve people on the basis of race, or when I believe we should privately pay for our own fire departments or when I believe that a minimum wage law is an assault on my freedom to be wholly exploited by owners of capitol.
Which is Never.
i dont believe that. the truth is the american political system was corrupt from the beginning which is why their are so many propagandists for lesser evil votes, meanwhile they tell us our votes matter. it was founded by slaveowners and bankers and their are not many redeeming qualities in our system other than the bill of rights.
when it becomes illegal for me to vote for candidates I like maybe you can say that until than fuck off!
Thanks Dameocrat, Margaret, Tambershall everyone. I wish I could have been here but I had a barbecue to go to I did not expect this big a response.
I do notice that the Paulites did not dispute Ron’s racism like they have in previous FDL threads this is a first step. They were afraid so they changed the subject and tried to keep the focus off Ron’s racism. When I smell fear I advance:)
Julianana I disagree that race is not that big an issue either we all have rights or none of us do.
I do agree that economics is the biggest issue.
If Ron won’t support the Federal Government creating Jobs well thats a big one for me.
If Ron doesn’t believe in the Federal Government regulating the banks more then his pledge to jail bankers rings hollow.
I do think we need more government regulation FDR regulated the shit out of everything and America was never greater. Where is the example of Ron Paul’s deregulation and gold standard pay down the debt fixing the economy? Herbert Hoover tried that and it made the Great Depression worse. From a Jobs/Economy viewpoint Ron is Obama/Hoover.
SenatorGovernment has some great points:) I wish I had made them.
I know.
This was like a trip to an Orange Satan thread.
I’m ready to gouge my eyes out.
Margaret won, though.
Why should it be moderated? It’s expressed as a reasonable political position in pursuit of progressive goals and lacks the personal insults that characterize some of your posts.
Try imagining for a moment that you know nothing about Obama, Romney, or Paul and you are given a briefing sheet on their platforms. The briefing does NOT mention party affiliation: it’s just a list of issues (War on Terror, bank bailouts, taxes, immigration, etc.) and for each issue it tells what each of the three has claimed his position is and also what his actual votes/actions have been. It can also include character related stuff like Paul not firing the guy who wrote “welfare checks” and Obama not dumping his “God damn America” pastor.
If you can do that, look at their actual positions and track records without preconceptions, who looks to be the most progressive candidate?
Margaret, if you look at the Ron Paul threads, you are the first to call names. And you call the most names. You are the one frothing at the mouth. Lol. Go look at your tiresome endless history of name calling. It is embarrassing.
Day in and day out, people make the argument that Obama should be supported because he is the lesser evil. But when somebody makes the argument that actually Ron Paul is the lesser evil, the vitriol comes out. The idea that people support Ron Paul because they idolize him and agree with him on every issue is simply false. People support him because they recognize that he is FAR MORE PRINCIPLED than the other candidates and CANNOT BE BOUGHT. And they support him because he is 100% right on the WARS, the SURVEILLANCE STATE, TORTURE, TSA CHILD AND GRANNY MOLESTATION, etc.
The shills are not the Ron Paul supporters. Rather, it seems much more likely that the shills are actually those engaged in a scorched earth attempt at character assassination.
And lastly, a little warning for you shills, the campaign season is long. Expect to be called out on all the issues flee from. We’ll see soon enough what your real principles are.
PulsarFDL I laid out a pretty ironclad case Ron was a racist the discussion got sidetracked my fault for not being here. Still its a great case nobody disproved nobody even wanted to defend Ron on that.
What people don’t talk about speaks even more than what they talk about you just have to listen.
The nothing to see here its boring argument is false and troll like I have never gotten this many comments somepeople thought it was interesting more interesting than anything I ever wrote:)
Do you actually have any evidence of that or is it just a “general use” insult?
Is Ron Paul my idea of a perfect candidate? HELL NO!
Do I think Ron Paul has some ideas best described as “nuts”? HELL YES!
Do I think he looks like the best of a bad lot? Still thinking about it, actually, but if there was an Obama/Romney/Paul election tomorrow I’d vote for Paul.
How about you? In this hypothetical the choices are Obama, Romney, or Paul and the clock stands at one minute to ballot time: who would you vote for?
“when it becomes illegal for me to vote for candidates I like maybe you can say that”
If a candidate you like meets the difficult requirements for being eligible for a write-in then certainly you should go for it. It might be wise for you to have a backup plan, though, just in case you do have to pick from the big three.
“until than fuck off!”
LOL! And you’re the one calling for more moderation of the forum?
Who are they running and are those people going to be on the ballot in all 50 states?
«
Day in and day out, people make the argument that Obama should be supported because he is the lesser evil. But when somebody makes the argument that actually Ron Paul is the lesser evil, the vitriol comes out. The idea that people support Ron Paul because they idolize him and agree with him on every issue is simply false. People support him because they recognize that he is FAR MORE PRINCIPLED than the other candidates and CANNOT BE BOUGHT
This is the Lake the most anti Obama Lefty blog there is Eblair I told you that before Jane is in jail protesting Obama so try an other argument!
We don’t support lesser evils at all!
As far as being bought goes No Government regulation of business is every corporations dream Ron is bought.
“Margaret won, though.”
Because she had the shrillest voice?
Seems to me folks aren’t trying to defend Paul: the “paid” “trolls” position is more along the lines of even if everything you say is true, the other choices are still worse.
And I haven’t seen any Paul attackers argue otherwise, unless you want to count paranoid fantasies about executive orders overturning supreme court decisions, etc.
“Does anyone, pro or anti, feel this is productive in any way???”
Indirectly, yes. Rational discussion is productive, but sometimes you can’t achieve that without going head-to-head with the obstructionists who don’t want any such thing to happen. Kinda like having to push through the New Black Panthers to get to your polling place: the conflict is not productive in and of itself, but it’s a necessary precursor to doing something worthwhile.
“nobody even wanted to defend Ron on that”
Maybe because even if it’s true he’s still more progressive than Obama? Seriously, try it on for size: is a racist who wants to end illegal wars, illegal renditions, deportations, etc., etc. more or less “progressive” than a non-racist who kills, tortures and imprisons?
You said, “if given the opportunity then Ron if elected President would be more evil”. How so? specifically, please: what is it you think Paul would do that is “more evil” than what Obama is doing right this very moment?
“We don’t support lesser evils at all!”
Oh, bullshit. Dameocrat can claim that: she says she’ll vote green or socialist. You can’t: not after concluding your rant with how Paul “would be more evil”. You are appealing to your readers to vote for Obama as the lesser evil, so spare us the BS.
That’s great, SG: a very principled stand.
So, how do you feel about voting for someone who orders the assassination of US citizens, bombs Libya, escalates Afghanistan, and thinks you’re a fucking retard?
Is that also a “Never”?
Really Ironymeter Google Firedoglake ThingsComeUndone and Vote third party.
I have said this many times in the comments. The title of this diary is voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
I am not encouraging anyone to settle if you have two plates of of spoiled food in front of you with deadly e coli do you eat it or risk starvation?
I would risk starvation rather than certain death.
Seriously, try it on for size: is a racist who wants to end illegal wars, illegal renditions, deportations, etc., etc. more or less “progressive” than a non-racist who kills, tortures and imprisons?
Do you really think a racist won’t solve the problem of non whites becoming the majority in America and gaining political power? Do you think he won’t do something about Gays like send them to Michelle Bachman’s husband’s clinic to be cured?
You said, “if given the opportunity then Ron if elected President would be more evil”. How so? specifically, please: what is it you think Paul would do that is “more evil” than what Obama is doing right this very moment?
End abortion, give the states the right to segregate schools again, make it legal for White shop owners to deny dark people service all it would take is a few Supreme Court picks and or a shock doctrine emergency.
As far as torture goes I’m sure the police once free of worries of Federal Hate crimes investigations will go back to the days of widespread beating a confession out of dark suspects.
Also imagine a world where the world’s largest polluter next to China is suddenly free of EPA regulations and EPA standards for gas milage are gone.
Global Warming alone will cost how many people who live on the coast their homes?
When SS and Medicare are gone how many poor will we have in America? No more minimum wage more poor people, no more Unions more poor people.
“Do you really think a racist won’t solve the problem of non whites becoming the majority in America and gaining political power?”
As I said, “How so? Specifically, please.” Just what exactly is it you’re afraid he’ll do to “solve the problem”? Tanks rolling down the streets machinegunning any non-white they see?
“Do you think he won’t do something about Gays like send them to Michelle Bachman’s husband’s clinic to be cured?”
An Executive Order that all Gays are to be rounded up and sent to reeducation clinics is not a serious concern: it’s a paranoid fantasy.
“End abortion”
Please do cite the Presidential authority that would allow him to overrule the Supreme Court.
“give the states the right to segregate schools again”
The opportunity for a Presidential veto of the Civil Rights Act came and went a long time ago: like it or not, Paul is now stuck with it.
“all it would take is a few Supreme Court picks and or a shock doctrine emergency.”.
That’s your idea of an explanation of how a US President could become a genocidal dictator with absolute power? I suppose you think he’ll have CIA hit squads assassinate three or four members of SCOTUS to create the vacancies, but how exactly do you think he’ll get his nominations approved? Oh, let me guess: he’ll wipe out Washington with a tactical nuke and blame it on the Gay/Black/Abortionist terror movement?
The rest of your post is more of the same crap: the President does not have the authority to do any of this unilaterally, and most couldn’t even be accomplished with the full support of both Houses. What you have presented is not an argument against Ron Paul, it’s the plot for a bad Ludlem novel.
Google Firedoglake ironymeter and Vote third party: you’ll find I’ve said the same things many times, also. I always encourage people to vote even if it means writing in Spongebob Squarepants, but that’s not really practical in a Presidential election, now is it? BTW: Paul is Third Party.
“two plates of of spoiled food”? Where in the article did you indicate that the Obama Omelet is just as deadly as the Paul Pasta? You’re standing outside the restaurant going on and on about how the Paul Pasta will kill you. You conclude by specifically saying it’s more deadly than the Obama Omelet, and now you expect anyone to believe you’re not encouraging people to order the Omelet?
If I were to Google Firedoglake ThingsComeUndone and “fearmongering” would I find you’re in favor of it? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing here: police beatings, SS and Medicare gone, no minimum wage, no unions, no abortions, genocide, etc.