Ron Paul is a piece of shit? Why, I never...!!

Shouldn't this be titled "Anonymous Exposes Shitty Journalism"?

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

>> ^aurens:

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.


I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.

For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

I'm calling you out because you posted an uninformative video with a spurious and sensationalistic title. (See @Grimm's comment above.) If Ron Paul is inappropriately connected to white supremacists, then by all means: expose him! This video certainly doesn't do the trick.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.
For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-
mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

@aurens got that out of your system? Good. Now click the link.

Enjoy!

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"

Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.

Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens got that out of your system? Good. Now click the link.
Enjoy!

This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

What is so magical about "states" that is lacking in that of the federal?

Global < Federal < State < County < Local < Street < House < Family < Self.
Seem arbitrary to me.

Meh.

I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

If you consider the fact that freedom constitutions the liberty gold if freedom gold is in accordance with liberty freedom, then it should follow that liberty liberty gold liberty isn't any more constitutional than liberty liberty constitution liberty. (In other words: freedom)


>> ^aurens:

I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

This is the second video (and the last) of this idiot that i have watched.
His journalism skill is non existent. He pauses between words, to the point were it is laughable.

That totally does suck. As a Ron Paul supporter, I can't be honest with myself and still do the knee-jerk-reactionary denial to some damning material against him if it turned out to be true. I would probably not support him anymore (not that I have an alternative).

This video really doesn't do much to prove anything other than that Sam Seder is kind of an idiot though.

The material on the link on the other hand, if taken as the same level of validity as most other media, does seem to suggest the guy has used the support of these white pride groups to support his campaigns in the past. That totally sucks, and makes me lose respect for Paul a great deal.

So now all the candidates suck again! Yay!

Also - please try to be bigger than the idiots who just label various groups of people with their cute little, derogatory nick-names. "The Paulies". What a joke. Any time you label someone as a group just shows how much of a failure in communication you are. People support who they support for good reason, and if you actually ask them why, and actually listen to their reasons, you might learn something about those who hold different beliefs than you. Fucking fools.

I respect a person who can be honest with themselves, nice post @artician

And the convolution and swiftboating continues ... more things that someone says is what someone else said but has never been heard to say ...


Keep posting links to the newsletters as if reading lies makes them true, thats a funny one.

Murray Rothbard wrote the racist newsletters, he died in 1995. Eric Dondero is a disgruntled ex staffer who ran against paul for office. Any more questions...



http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies



In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

" the problem that we have ... is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups.

We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul

Look, you can diminish the value of this discussion by resorting to nonsensical humor, or you can actually add something to the conversation.

There are lots of things that irk me about this post (and its title, and some of the comments), but to suggest a link between states' rights and white supremacy is especially (and intellectually) insulting.

We (Americans) pay so much lip service to our constitution—our presidents, our congressmen, our federal civil servants all swear oaths to uphold and defend it—and yet it's continually trashed, both by the politicians themselves and by a general public which chooses either to ignore certain of its stipulations or else willingly forgo any thorough understanding of it. (With your last comment, you're showing an absolute lack of appreciation for a federal system which allots certain privileges to the federal government and certain privileges to the states.)

I happen to think it a curious thing that we're so obsessed with our constitution; I see a lot of similarities between people who worship the constitution and people who worship certain holy books. It was a remarkable document when it was written, sure, but in many ways it's outmoded, and it's certainly vague enough in some of its important passages to cause a considerable amount of disagreement in its interpretation. For better or for worse, though, it's the foundation of our government, and we can't just take the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't like. If there are things about it we disagree with, or if we no longer agree with the form of government it enshrines, then we ought to abolish it and write a new constitution, or else amend it so that certain things are made more clear, or brought more up to date with our current understanding of ethics and morality and political and social theory. I think part of what makes American politics so comically absurd, at times, is that our society is trying to reconcile two radically different ideals, namely the extreme emphasis on individual liberty (as dictated by our constitution) and the socially progressive emphasis on communal responsibility.

/end rant

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If you consider the fact that freedom constitutions the liberty gold if freedom gold is in accordance with liberty freedom, then it should follow that liberty liberty gold liberty isn't any more constitutional than liberty liberty constitution liberty. (In other words: freedom)

>> ^aurens:
I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

>> ^aurens:

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)

Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.

Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.

Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.

Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

"...but to suggest a link between states' rights and white supremacy is especially (and intellectually) insulting."

@aurens I suspect you are very young (in comparison).
Not that you are immature, just that it seems you have not had a lot of experience in politics.

States' Rights = code for White Supremacy, and has been used as such for decades. Here is a link, read and learn.

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

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?

I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.

No need to spew out more lies. The existing lies have already been repeated so many times, that enough stupid people believe them.
Congratulation.

SO HERE'S WHY ALL THIS IS BULLSHIT.

Prejudice does not compare to blatant corruption and theft.

Ron Paul would seemingly never enforce outright racist policies.
I'm fairly certain, at worst, he would enable legislation that ALLOWED FOR racism.
You know, free to compete against all the other ideologies and philosophies of humans [in the free market].

Which is more likely to thrive:
A.)The racist company with a limited consumer base.
B.)The multi-culturalist company who welcomes every newcomer.

Isn't a few white only delicatessens a small price to pay for fixing nearly every other problem in the country?

Ron Paul is implicated to be a neo-nazzy because he shares the same planet they do, but His Earness, who:

* sought out marxist and communist professors in kollij
* has writings that are hidden from the public (gee, wonder why?)
* has a kollij record hidden from the public
* attended the Church of Hate Whitey, was married by it and gave it 20 grand
* had these and other points downplayed or ignored by his protective mainstream media sycophants

was considered Worthy by the left.

I'll see your "Ron Paul is secretly Hitler II" and raise one "Obama is a marxist radical."

Prejudice leads to blatant corruption and theft.

I don't know why you are so eager to live in a society where blatant discrimination is sanctioned by the government under the guise of "free market". Perhaps you are not thinking through the implications of such a society?

I don't how any rational person in the USA who cannot pass as "white" would welcome policies where racist companies were free to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Been there done that.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

SO HERE'S WHY ALL THIS IS BULLSHIT.
Prejudice does not compare to blatant corruption and theft.
Ron Paul would seemingly never enforce outright racist policies.
I'm fairly certain, at worst, he would enable legislation that ALLOWED FOR racism.
You know, free to compete against all the other ideologies and philosophies of humans [in the free market].
Which is more likely to thrive:
A.)The racist company with a limited consumer base.
B.)The multi-culturalist company who welcomes every newcomer.

Ron Paul Denialism has the resilience of the Birther Movement. Even with a video of a hooded Ron Paul lynching a negro, people will still deny the guy could be a racist. Even if he's not racist but actively encourages racism and would enact policies in which racism would thrive, people are OK with that.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.

Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.

Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.

I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

>> ^longde:

Ron Paul Denialism has the resilience of the Birther Movement. Even with a video of a hooded Ron Paul lynching a negro, people will still deny the guy could be a racist. Even if he's not racist but actively encourages racism and would enact policies in which racism would thrive, people are OK with that.


Oh, so because there are simply no facts about this bullshit, people are in denial.
Interesting logic. Seriously, very interesting.
I just had to check the URL RQ, because I thought Im on LiveLeak for a second.

I cant believe the audacity and usage of lies without even a blink. Totalitarian practices par excellence. And that complete and utter bullshit even got at least 5 guys voting up. Im starting to lose all hope for America...

@longde

The country had white only policies in a time when the only people who held significant wealth or power were all white people.

We live in a completely different era. The circumstances are different. The country and the people in it think in a completely different manner.

You can't legislate the way people feel so why force a racist asshole to serve the demographics which she or he doesn't approve of [for whatever ignornant reason they have]

Would You Longde support a company if you could NOT eat lunch with your: Gay, Black, Norwegian, Blind, Tourettes, Pregnant, Pastafarian friends there?

Alternately, would you consider it a morally correct thing to support a company who parades around in a multicultural facade. But in actuality is internally racist, prejudice, bigoted?

Lastly, could you explain exactly how "Prejudice leads to blatant corruption and theft."

thanks

the federalist papers should be mandatory reading in high school.
at least then students would understand the fundamental discussion about federal government vs states rights.

while i agree with some of ron pauls positions and respect his steadfastness concerning issues i cannot in good conscience support someone who admires the infantile philosophy of ayn rand so much as to name his son after that sociopath.

at face value ron pauls schtick sounds all well and good but when you come to understand just how far right and out of touch his policies actually are you should become wary..veeery wary of the ideals he proposes.

you think you are a slave now?
you aint seen nothing yet.
welcome to the united states of corporate america.
because in ron pauls world the government would become an anemic entity that would have no punch to stop the absolute takeover by corporations.
the entire working class would become enslaved by a system where money became speech.

oh wait......

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Would You Longde support a company if you could NOT eat lunch with your: Gay, Black, Norwegian, Blind, Tourettes, Pregnant, Pastafarian friends there?

I'll let longde respond on his own to your full post, but I see this one a lot. What exactly is the overall point you're trying to get across? Are you saying that you think no such business would ever come into existence or persist?

I think if it were legal, you'd see all manner of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-latino, and anti-muslim businesses pop up, and persist. After all, a certain segment of the population would be willing to pay a premium to know they're supporting a bigoted operation.

Furthermore, once those places pop up, suppose a gay person goes into a "no gays allowed" store. What then? If the gay person won't leave, and shop owner calls the police, are they obligated to arrest the gay person for trespassing?

How is that world "more free" than the one we live in now?

>> ^Kreegath:

I'm curious, how many other candidates have received campaign contributions from white supremacists? Are they the only group of supremacists that has any impact with their contribution? Does their contribution even mean anything, other than that they're now poorer? Because if most or even all the candidates have, at some point, gotten money from one or more supremacists, wouldn't it be a moot point to specifically attack Paul on that issue?
I'm not trying to be clever or passively aggressively making jabs at you, I'm not from the US so I don't really know how the politics of election work there, hence the many questions.
It does seem strange, however, that simply receiving money from someone would somehow implicate you in any way as siding with their views. It kind of feels more like conjecture and gossip instead of politics, and what I would focus on to discredit him instead, if it'd been an election in my country, would be on what Paul actually says about his views. For instance that clip of him saying he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, which is a statement he would certainly have to expand on before becoming viable for an electoral position of any capacity.


inclined to agree.
I get the feeling it would be fairly easy to link Obama with the Black Panthers or some other less mainstream group rather easily.

and it would seem that Libertarianism vs. any other "ism" going right now is the most favorable to white supremacists. ... So, just because the white supremacists likes ron paul doesn't necessarily mean ron paul likes them.

plus he "should" be smarter than political suicide.

still, all things considered, i wouldn't vote for him because he's a bible-thumping idiot.
but i would vote for him just to see what happens. lol!

and regardless of whether White Supremecists like to piggy back on states rights issues, the fact remains that the initial balance of power between federal and states (not too mention between the 3 branches of fed gov) as vaguely envisioned by the framers, has been rather seriously fucked.

and

@aurens

indeed, our constitution is incapable of handling complex modern issues never contemplated by the framers. This is all too clear in the recent SOPA issue.
It is thus prone to the best "interpretation" money can buy.

Of course those types of establishments would exist and persist.
But only because racism itself exists and persists.

Moreover, what kind of douche bag "____" person would go into a "no ____ allowed" store in the first place?

And for what purpose? To cause a scene?
It most likely isn't to purchase goods and services.

How is that world any less free if people aren't threaten with force/violence for openly discriminating?

Do we currently live in the land of ultimate acceptance?
Where The Salvation Army allows Gay and Lesbian persons to serve as Pastors and Priest or The Girl Scouts don't have vehement anti-TransPersons members?

If THIS is the very worst Ron Paul can dish out. I can't see it really being that big an issue.
Because citizens, like you @NetRunner, would be free to ensure your local community wasn't accepting of racists!

[OH SNAP.. see how that works?! ]
>> ^NetRunner:

Are you saying that you think no such business would ever come into existence or persist?
Furthermore, once those places pop up, suppose a gay person goes into a "no gays allowed" store. What then?
How is that world "more free" than the one we live in now?

Exactly as above.... right on, you nailed it.

Ron Paul's own quotes ON TAPE are proof of his views.

I see how his logic may appear convoluted to the simple minded, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.

Yes, that is the solution, and yes, it requires a thing called "effort".

Not one of you saying he's a bigot has ANY proof, beyond something written that has been directly denied. Do you want that to happen to you? Keep it up, maybe someday someone can lie about you and people will believe it.

Disgusting.

Don't get me wrong, @vaire2ube.

I still believe Ron Paul holds undue prejudice toward some groups.
[read: is a racist, anti-GLBT asshat]
But who doesn't? He's a human. He has the natural right to hold prejudice.

Ron Paul can be as bigoted as he wants. With the condition that he doesn't inflict violence or force upon those he's bigoted towards.

It sucks that Ron Paul happens to lack compassion and hold prejudices in these areas. But the alternatives - Mitt or Obama - are worse.

[...unless for some reason Ron Paul DOES turn into Hilter II]

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

How is that world any less free if people aren't threaten with force/violence for openly discriminating?

Except of course the other alternative, the Ron Paul preferred alternative, is that we condone the use of violence to uphold the discrimination. I noticed you edited out from your quote of me the bit about the police being obligated to arrest gay people who defy a private shop's "no gays allowed" ban.

That's the real problem with the whole property rights > civil rights things. It doesn't reduce violence, it just legitimizes it when it's directed at the people being discriminated against.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

"...but to suggest a link between states' rights and white supremacy is especially (and intellectually) insulting."
@aurens I suspect you are very young (in comparison).
Not that you are immature, just that it seems you have not had a lot of experience in politics.
States' Rights = code for White Supremacy, and has been used as such for decades. Here is a link, read and learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights is a better link, but let us not pretend, just because racists have tried to use States' rights claims as a path to legal discrimination, that any mention of the rights of states implies the same motive.

States are afforded far more rights in the Constitution than the federal government is and there are plenty of reasons to talk about them that don't include discrimination.

>> ^enoch:

while i agree with some of ron pauls positions and respect his steadfastness concerning issues i cannot in good conscience support someone who admires the infantile philosophy of ayn rand so much as to name his son after that sociopath.

It's a minor point among the rest of your post, but little Randal wasn't named for Ayn Rand.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-rand-paul
http://www.louisville.com/content/gospel-according-paul-louisville-magazines-inside-look-us-senate-candidate-rand-paul-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Don't mistake my downvote for a dismissal of these charges; I'll be keeping an eye on this story. (Not that it matters much. RP ain't getting the nomination.)

The video is just bad. Sam Seder will say anything to get some attention so he's one of the last people who I'd take at his word. If it weren't for the link you provided, @NetRunner, I wouldn't even have given this a second thought.

You know what was funny, an old white lady attacked Paul for not wanting to ban gay marriage at the federal level...and he came out stating that marriage at all should not be in the hands of the government (Contracts between two people are fine...)

Shows that his political stance gets him damned with a catch 22...

As far as this vid goes, its point blows. It seems Sammy won't go further... and even if the point is proven, it still seems he is hiding for whatever reason. I don't know why? He and Google have all the proof. We should agree, Ron Paul meets with racists, and child molesters (His grocer is one...apparently.)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^enoch:
while i agree with some of ron pauls positions and respect his steadfastness concerning issues i cannot in good conscience support someone who admires the infantile philosophy of ayn rand so much as to name his son after that sociopath.
It's a minor point among the rest of your post, but little Randal wasn't named for Ayn Rand.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/10-thing
s-you-didnt-know-about-rand-paul
http://www.louisvil
le.com/content/gospel-according-paul-louisville-magazines-inside-look-us-senate-candidate-rand-paul-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html?_r=
1&pagewanted=all


didnt know that.
now i know better.thanks OC =)

Heh. I thought the obligation of the police bit was rhetoric.

[Wouldn't you call the police if QM or PennyPacker was all up in your house, demanding shit you didn't want to give them? o_O?]

Yes. Ron Paul, like billions of other humans, happens to have a conservative style brain structure which predisposes him to being more cautious and fearful of out-groups i.e. a little bigoted [well, a whole lot in his case but still]

You're always talking about how we can harness the power of voting & democratic systems to eventually overcome things; and you're almost guaranteed to make actual progress thru those means if Paul were POTUS.

So why are you letting a little thing like *Gasp* a Racist Conservative Republican, stop you from acting in your own best interest.

[Since you're neither black nor gay. I think you'll be okay either way, @NetRunner]

TL;DR - Ron Paul is our best shot for real progress. Beggars can't be choosers.

p.s. - I also feel it's more like a Natural Rights Vs Civil Rights thing. Controlling prejudices people hold over you isn't a right, I don't think.

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"? Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.) Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it? Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack." Please don't accuse me of something like that without adequate reason for doing so.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.
Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.
Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.
I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

This is a terrible argument. Back in the day, anti-Communist stances went hand-in-hand with the KKK and racism. But we don't think that an anti-communist stance is a terrible thing.

One thing doesn't cause the other to be bad. There are a lot of white supremacists out there who enjoy burgers, but that doesn't mean burgers are racist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

Hi, spent the weekend skiing. Lots of comments, and don't know where to begin.

@GenjiKilpatrick Banks are private; mortgage brokers are private; many good local hospitals are private; insurance companies are private; neighborhood associations are private. Should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion?

It's not just a case of not being allowed to eat at Nazi Joe's Diner. And before you answer, there have been recent cases of some of the entities above discriminating, despite a free market existing and racism somehow being bad for business.

And this being black history month, it would be good for you to read up and realize that in the past, many non-white americans were rich and prosperous, despite what you said above.

>> ^aurens:

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"?

Sure.

>> ^aurens:
Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.)

Well, the rest of that comment was "That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail."

So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you didn't just want to make this about me.

>> ^aurens:
Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it?

There are tons of "uninformative" videos on the Sift. It's rare that you ever capture every facet of any subject in a single video clip. I don't really think the appropriate way to react to that is to disparage the poster. How about just going on your merry way to another video, or just asking for more info...or better still providing more info?

I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found. Fully informative now. But rather than shift into a discussion of the validity of the accusation on the merits, you just kept trying to hammer home how dishonest and slanderous you think I am for posting this video in the first place.

>> ^aurens:
Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Yeah, I found that rather ironic. Paul used that quip on Santorum because he'd mistakenly thought a comment Paul had made was directed at him. You called me out by name, and accused me of some sort of moral failing for posting this video, then called me "oversensitive" for merely describing that as a personal attack.

>> ^aurens:
Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack."

I know, which is part of the issue.

Like I said, I get it. It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Heh. I thought the obligation of the police bit was rhetoric.

Nope, it was an attempt to get you to remember something, anything, about the era that led to the Civil Rights Act.

It means going back to a time where this happens anytime one of those "out-groups" shows their face in the wrong place.

You're going to have to explain to me why that's justice, and why that's freedom, because it looks to me like violent oppression and a criminal deprivation of liberty.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You're always talking about how we can harness the power of voting & democratic systems to eventually overcome things; and you're almost guaranteed to make actual progress thru those means if Paul were POTUS.

Paul is antithetical to "progress." His vision of a perfect society is an America where we unwind everything that's happened in the last 100 years. Possibly more, depending on how seriously you take his position on the Civil War.

There are a couple issues where, purely by accident, Paul agrees with me. I want the war in Afghanistan to end because I think it's stupid, not because I think America should never get involved in international politics. I want the drug war to end because it's a terrible way to solve the problem with substance abuse -- universal healthcare would be a lot better. Paul is just as mad about the drug war as he is about the FDA (or the EPA, for that matter).

Ron Paul stands in steadfast opposition to everything I care about. Even on the issues where we seem to agree, we turn out to be miles apart when you get down to the details.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So why are you letting a little thing like Gasp a Racist Conservative Republican, stop you from acting in your own best interest.
[Since you're neither black nor gay. I think you'll be okay either way, @NetRunner]

To quote MLK, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Even if all I cared about was my own ass, the "freedom" to discriminate against black or gay people would also mean people have the freedom to discriminate against whites, or men, or straight people, or liberals, or atheists, or gamers.

The protections against discrimination protect me as much as it does any given out-group.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

>> ^aurens:

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless;>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this.

I didn't make a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation, I only made a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation.

>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.
...
I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none.

>> ^aurens:

NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.

Definition of slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

I'm not accusing you of slander, I just think you're presenting a malicious, false, defamatory report.


Definition of disparage: "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of"

I'm not disparaging you, I'm just accusing you of slander, opportunism, and generally being unhelpful.

I'm not personally attacking you, I just was calling you out by name and saying your moral character leaves a lot to be desired.

@NetRunner, you just pulled apart my sentences into pieces that make no sense. That's not how productive conversation works. Go back and (re)read my comment; I think you'll find that it's internally consistent.


Edit:

The part that you pulled out of context, namely this:

"I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none."

... was referring to the article you linked to. I'm calling the article inaccurate and biased, not you. Please don't remove my comments from their contexts and misinterpret them—and invite others to do the same.


Second edit:

And, of course, you've removed my original claim of bias in the article from its original context, in which I make clear precisely which points I think are biased and not fact-checked:>> ^aurens:

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"
Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.
Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.

Oh, and I must say: that's some interesting logic you're throwing my way. In defending myself against your claim of "personal attacks," you're calling me slanderous. In other words, it's slanderous of me to defend myself.

Brilliant! Joseph Heller should have used an argument like that in Catch-22.

@NetRunner

Who cares if you agree by accident, as long as you agree?

Who cares if the EPA is abolished, if it's filled with Ex-Monsanto Execs and Lobbyists who make it impotent anyway?

The system is broken and needs a reboot. Why are you gonna try to limp along 'til a better match than Ron Paul appears. It just won't happen in this decade.

You keep acting as if your "Vote Democrat" worldview will result in some slow but steady march into Ameritopia.
[Nevermind, the fact that "Democrats" like Obama are center-right to begin with and too timid to propose ultra-left policies even with Democratic Majority.]

It simply can't happen. The system currently does not function how it was advertised.
~~

Plain and simple. Does a person or business have the right to refuse service?

If so, you've legitimized discrimination. If not, you're forcing your will upon others.

Both are relatively wrong. But which is worse? Do civil rights trump natural rights?

Moreover, the entire point I'm getting at is: Ron Paul wants to decentralize power i.e. GIVE YOU MOAR POWER!

Another blaring point you refuse to comprehend or admit, even if Ron Paul overturns 100 years of law [which he wouldn't be able to] YOU now have the power to construct BETTER policies.

Create your own EPA and FDA with more strict standards. Create your own business park that has anti-discriminatory policies. This is the true essence of Democracy and Self-Governance combined.

Or.. you can keep being Obama's bitch boy.

For some reason, I think you'll choose the latter.

Taking power from the federal gov't and putting more it in the hands of every local Boss Hogg empowers the individual less, not more.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@NetRunner
Moreover, the entire point I'm getting at is: Ron Paul wants to decentralize power i.e. GIVE YOU MOAR POWER!

@GenjiKilpatrick I guess I should put this more bluntly, since you're just responding to me with slogans and talking points anyways. I don't want Ron Paul within a million miles of the Presidency. He is not even a slight match for me. He is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath.

The libertarian theory of governance is bunk. If all the government does is uphold absolute property rights, and enforce contract rights, then we don't all get more power, it means the wealthy people who own everything get more power, and the police just become their security guards.

The way I see it, nothing in this country will ever improve as long as this entire line of argument persists. The conversation we should be having is "what are the best government policies to move us forward" not this BS argument about whether government policies should exist at all.

Ron Paul exemplifies the worst aspects of the American right -- he whitewashes the past, and tries to bring old, failed, tyrannical, cruel policies from a century or more ago back to life, all the while trying to drape it in powdered wigs, the American flag, and cheese-covered freedom fries. But it's just snake oil. Hell, it's not just snake oil, it's fucking Soylent Green.

Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's personal copy of the Constitution? It's a cookbook! A cookbook!

@NetRunner

You're as inflexible as Quantumushroom. Have fun wasting your vote on Obama again this year.

Sure Ron Paul is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath. But as least he's honest [about everything but bigotry].

Also, thanks for ignoring every point I made about how you yourself could bring progress to your local area and communities with a more decentralized federal government.

I'm sure those wealthy people who own everything in Washington DC will continue enacting policies, like Universal Health Care and Election Reform, that are clearly in the best interest of everyone else in the country.

Which point of mine did you actually respond to? Isn't turnabout fair play?

Look at that picture of MLK getting arrested and tell me, what's the bigger injustice? That such a thing ever happened, or that we let that guy convince us to stop doing it?

Ron Paul is solidly in the latter camp. Are you?

You tried to reframe the issue so the latter camp sounds justified, but I don't think you've really accepted what that entails. It means you condone, defend, and synonymize with "liberty" the practice of arresting people whose only crime was being black in a public place owned by a bigot.

Those are your choices -- stand up and directly defend the righteousness of arresting MLK for being black in public, or stay in that small, inflexible box you've climbed into, and avoid having a real conversation with me.

Well, there is another option, you can actually change your mind, and stop eating the Soylent Green.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

You're as inflexible as Quantumushroom.
...
Also, thanks for ignoring every the point I made

Okay, plug up your bleeding heart for like two seconds and try to pick on up the NUANCES of these next few statements.

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.

[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]

However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.

He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.

AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Meaning, we don't need a fuckin' law to tell us it's immoral.
E.G. "Good thing the 13th Amendment will never be repelled. Otherwise, all my black friends would have to be slaves again"

[Luckily for us, those Yankees made an amendment. Now we only have wage, sex, prison and sweatshop slavery to contend with! Go Liberal Democrats!!]

I feel i've been very honest about the implications of a Ron Paul presidency.
I agree that some groups will seek to reestablish institutionalized discrimination under the guise of property rights [which I never intentionally advocated for this entire discussion].

Again, not the point!

The entire point of Ron Paul becoming president is to reshape the political landscape!

You know, into one where our tiny individual voices actually make a significant difference.

I'll put this argument in the simplest terms I can:

p1 - @NetRunner wants to see political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

p2 - A Ron Paul Presidency would enable political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

C - @NetRunner should advocate for a Ron Paul Presidency.

Shit, late for work.
kthanksbai

If you want to change the political landscape, vote for a candidate with a little integrity. Not a foolish consistency.

There are plenty of 3rd party candidates to vote for if all you want to do is send a message. At least one of those probably matches your views somewhat and hasn't stoked bigotry for personal gain.

Okay, plug up that giant asshole you call a mouth for like two seconds and try to pick on up [sic] the NUANCES of these next few statements.

Why? Why would one situation be wrong, and the other right?

Why would "institutional" discrimination be wrong, but institutional discrimination done by a privately owned institution be right?

Either way it's the "public" police who'd be applying violence to uphold these edicts.

And BTW, didn't you say not more than a handful of comments ago that we're actually not past this, and that you think these sorts of bigoted institutions would come back if they were legal?
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.
[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]
However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.
He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.
AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Oh, and this? P2 is false.

Even if P2 were true, the meaning of the word "change" in P1 is a million miles from the meaning of the word "change" in P2.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I'll put this argument in the simplest terms I can:
p1 - @NetRunner was to see political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy consensus.
p2 - A Ron Paul Presidency would enable political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy consensus.
C - @NetRunner should advocate for a Ron Paul Presidency.

Yup. Thick and inflexible.

I'm not done with you or this issue yet.

Thread's gettin' long so I'll end it here.

Until next time, Gadget. See you in the *discuss ..ions

Fascinating discussion. American politics is like no other.