View Full Version : PROOF: NY TIMES Right About Ron Paul Being Racist
NY Times was RIGHT about Ron Paul and here's the proof.
Comrades:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
The subsequent postings are very informative too.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63682
AE6IP
01-26-2008, 10:32 PM
Dude, you're getting to be as embarrassing as Matt is.
There are plenty of good reasons to not vote for Ron Paul, but "he's a racist" isn't one of them.
Bill White's already been debunked on QRZ.
Dude, you're getting to be as embarrassing as Matt is.
There are plenty of good reasons to not vote for Ron Paul, but "he's a racist" isn't one of them.
Bill White's already been debunked on QRZ.
A) Show me that thread.
B) Rarely is anything debunked here on the ZED.
C) Not really anywhere near as embarrassing as Matt. Count the threads. If you had a point, attacking me is making it harder to take seriously. Show me the beef.
"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."
But that's not good enough, says one political veteran.
"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"
Yep, that's my name on the contract, but I didn't write it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
The writings of Chairman Paul, this sounds non-racist?
A mob of black demonstrators, led by the "Rev." Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City "to reclaim it for our people."
Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?
But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.
Debunked? Only for the wishful thinkers and daydream believers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/8/185438/7845/186/433066
AE6IP
01-26-2008, 10:48 PM
Yep, that's my name on the contract, but I didn't write it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
Precisely. Paul is not a racist.
He's an opportunist. He allowed Lew Rockwell, apparently, to write a lot of racists nonsense over Paul's signature, because it worked to get him votes. He dropped the act when it stopped working.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Paul, but in this case, it's his opportunism, not his racism.
Precisely. Paul is not a racist.
He's an opportunist. He allowed Lew Rockwell, apparently, to write a lot of racists nonsense over Paul's signature, because it worked to get him votes. He dropped the act when it stopped working.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Paul, but in this case, it's his opportunism, not his racism.
Really. That's hardly proof nor in any way debunking this story. In fact, if he were pandering to the racists then he is the kind of opportunist that we should be wary of. Obviously he has no boundaries and will say or do anything to get votes. If he isn't what he said he was then, why should he be what he says he is now?
I'm gonna show you proof that aliens have landed and helped me hoist a new super duper antenna that is going to give me DXCC#1 honor roll in 10 seconds.
Just watch...
If it's on the internet, it MUST be true, correct?
:D
N3ATS
01-26-2008, 11:36 PM
Testing. Testing. :D :cool:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j238/swweiss/obama_huckabee.png
K5RCD
01-27-2008, 01:22 AM
Ron Paul a RACIST?
http://joycedesignsinc.com/images/hogwash.jpg
I know Ron Paul.
I know him well.
He was my Congressman when I lived on the coast.
I have worked closely with him on fisheries related issues and continue to do so.
He may be a lot of things (mostly good in my humble opinion) but he damned sure ain't a RACIST! :cool:
I knew him too and you know what...
Still not proof. Impossible to say that you did, then even if that were so, it would be highly likely that you'd be touting him as a "friend." Of course, unlike those "Constitutional" Ronettes who would disallow your post for disagreeing with them, I OTOH, think your opinion is alright. Just not factual.
kc2orw
01-27-2008, 03:23 AM
The New York Times was wrong it isn't actually Ron Paul who is a racists it's the Ron Paul supporters who are racist, thieves, thugs, and a bit like Nazi brown shirts.
N3ATS
01-27-2008, 04:36 AM
Nazi?
National Socialist German Workers Party.
Who are the Socialists? Who are those who are dividing the people using social programs as class warfare?
You're emotion has trumped your brain again.
Nazi?
National Socialist German Workers Party.
Who are the Socialists? Who are those who are dividing the people using social programs as class warfare?
You're emotion has trumped your brain again.
Sorry, but it's your emotion that is trumping real facts.
Mussolini was a Socialist. When he converted to Fascism (the Nazi Movement), the first thing he did was to hunt and kill all the Socialists and Liberals. Of course, it's common knowledge that fascists always use this argument as an attempt to be the wolf in sheeps clothing. May I suggest actually reading the history book rather than using it for a doorstop?
From Creation of Fascism:
Once Mussolini returned from World War I he gave little credence to socialism (though for a time, his paper still called itself "a Socialist paper"). By February 1918, he was calling for the emergence of a leader "ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep." In May, he hinted in a speech in Bologna that he was going to take that position.
On March 23, 1919, Mussolini reformed the Milan fascio as the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian Fighting League), consisting of 200 members.[8] Its first manifesto promised broad reforms. It became an organized political movement a month later. The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini's close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called Blackshirts (or squadristi) to terrorise socialists, anarchists, and communists. The government rarely interfered. The Fascisti grew so rapidly that within two years, it transformed itself into the National Fascist Party at a congress in Rome. Also in 1921, Mussolini was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.
History not Histrionics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini#Creation_of_Fascism)
The New York Times was wrong it isn't actually Ron Paul who is a racists it's the Ron Paul supporters who are racist, thieves, thugs, and a bit like Nazi brown shirts.
Actually he is, so I must disagree.
First of all, in this newsletter with his name on it. He claims to have been very upset with what was in it. Did Ron Paul ever, in His newsletter, issue a retraction and apology? Nope. When the NY Times did it, his supporters were all over it, even though it was a responsible thing to do. So if he disagreed with it where's his retraction?
Second, we have Paul, in his own words, reinforcing his racism not 15 or 20 years ago, but a month ago in December, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them.
AND in the same broadcast:
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations [...]
it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
Still Racist After All These Years (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/18503/806)
W3MIV
01-27-2008, 12:07 PM
Mussolini was a Socialist. When he converted to Fascism (the Nazi Movement)...
Wrong. Mussolini was a Fascist, not a Nazi. The two were similar but wholly separate political movements. "Fascist" comes from the Roman "fasces," which was a bundle of rods that formed a sceptor of authority in ancient Rome.
The term is much overused in liberal political commentaries to deprecate anyone who does not share the usual revenue-looter cum socio-experimentation mentality prevalent among modern Leftists.
kc2orw
01-27-2008, 12:45 PM
Actually he is, so I must disagree.
Thats fine I don't like him anyway I would much rather have a more honest politician get elected then a thief like Ron Paul. So that would be anybody but Ron Paul :D
I am way past caring if Ron Paul supporters like what I say or not as I simply can't tolerate them... period.
They know he is going to lose, but they are having (harmless we hope) fun.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbpaulpeople0126pnjan26%2C0%2C2437833.story
Wrong. Mussolini was a Fascist, not a Nazi. The two were similar but wholly separate political movements. "Fascist" comes from the Roman "fasces," which was a bundle of rods that formed a sceptor of authority in ancient Rome.
Wrong. And I have proven it with the link. The title comes from the article alluded to. What is your refutation? A mere opinion from a 13th century throwback. In fact here's more:
Italian Fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. German Nazism, under Adolf Hitler, was inspired by Italian Fascism but only came to power ten years later in 1933."]Italian Fascism (in Italian, fascismo) was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. German Nazism, under Adolf Hitler, was inspired by Italian Fascism but only came to power ten years later in 1933.
German Nazism, under Adolf Hitler, was inspired by Italian Fascism but only came to power ten years later in 1933. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism)
The term is much overused in liberal political commentaries to deprecate anyone who does not share the usual revenue-looter cum socio-experimentation mentality prevalent among modern Leftists.
IF you weren't quite so ignorant Albert, as someone who has read this thread wouldn't be, you would see this is to refute the allegation that Fascism and Nazism is a "Socialist" movement that Steve made when he noticed that White belonged to the American Nazi Party. But, I digress and you Albert have just exhibited another facet of your ignorance with your knee-jerk neocon response.
Not anywhere near as overused as Socialist and/or Communist is by the Fascist Right in this country. If you can't take it, don't dish it out Nazi boys. Oh and as usual Albert, you and your thesaurus are excellent at proving Pete Seeger right. Too bad you like to hide behind the idiotic overuse of wordsmithing, but to each their own. How's the plowing coming along serf?:p
W3MIV
01-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Right, John Boy, I am hiding.
You might note that I stated that the two systems were "similar," and you may assert what you will, most historians do not credit Mussolini with being Hitler's "inspiration," but you may believe what you need to.
You are one of the prime detractors who pans Fox, yet now you post nonsense from blogs and assert that it is the truth. You continually blast a certain "other" poster as "link-o-mania," yet when the link to some blogger suits your need, you revel in it and proclaim it to be gospel.
I stand fully behind my assertion that "fascism" is an insult tossed off lightly by left-wing idiot-logues such as you to brand anyone who rejects the lock-step mandate being urged by the Klintons, Howard Dean and the other dregs of the Democratic Party.
You post away and prove my point with every one of them.
:D
Why Albert, I am abiding by the rules of the Paul-o-kons. They've asserted that this NY Times BLOG is NEWS. And since this is very much as the NeoCons they are so very different from before them did, I see no problem with blogs if they don't. They set the rules. If you have a problem go to the source Albert rather than the person you happen not to like. But that's asking too much from a primitive I'd imagine.
You are having a problem with the forest and the trees. Seems that being a fascist, you can't really see the fascism around you. That's why Liberals are here. To help you.
Keep looking in the thesaurus. Eventually you'll be up to an 18th Century vocabulary. You are a hope to primitives everywhere.
N3ATS
01-27-2008, 03:51 PM
John,
What is more racist than dividing social classes based on race? Likewise the division of economic classes.
All these socialist ideas and programs are contributing to the division of the people. They maintain division between race and economic classes, and perpetuate that division. What's worse is the status-quo candidates have no real plan for economic FREEDOM, because they want to keep people in their place. By doing this, they create dependence, and that dependence keeps these schmucks in power.
Who is more free? Those who rely on the government for sustenance or those who can do for themselves? Who are the slaves?
k8cpa
01-27-2008, 05:48 PM
The proof (http://people.ronpaul2008.com/michigan/2008/01/20/statement-from-leslie-roszman/) is in the pudding:
Leslie Roszman, Michigan state coordinator for Ron Paul 2008 issued the following statement:
“It has come to my attention that one of our volunteers here in Michigan, Randy Gray, has affiliations with a racist and hateful organization. He was appointed to the volunteer position of county organizer for one of Michigan’s 83 counties. Randy Gray was not forthcoming about his background and he was in clear violation of the campaign’s code of conduct for volunteers. No one affiliated with racist organizations would ever knowingly be allowed to have any role with the campaign. Dr. Paul’s philosophy of freedom and individual liberty is the antithesis of racism.”
Picture of said Randy Gray:
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q266/phenry1970/dkos/randygray_kkk.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q266/phenry1970/dkos/randygray_ronpaul.jpg
Video of Randy Gray at a rally shortly after the Newsome Murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom ) in Tenn:
Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TRBb_zBgZM)
As I said before, the Proof is in the pudding. This is the kind of people that Ron Paul attracts.
and they want that for a President. :eek: Please. :rolleyes:
and... Yes, I know, he's no longer with them. But what does that say about someone running for President?
Let's not also forget the actions of some of his followers online, They've been known to stalk, harrash and even threaten people that speak out against Ron Paul. They've attempted to hack websites that are critical of him.
In other words, they're a bunch of nuts. period!
John,
What is more racist than dividing social classes based on race? Likewise the division of economic classes.
All these socialist ideas and programs are contributing to the division of the people. They maintain division between race and economic classes, and perpetuate that division. What's worse is the status-quo candidates have no real plan for economic FREEDOM, because they want to keep people in their place. By doing this, they create dependence, and that dependence keeps these schmucks in power.
Who is more free? Those who rely on the government for sustenance or those who can do for themselves? Who are the slaves?
Steve, I respect your opinion, but must disagree. The basic necessities for a productive life are denied to Americans even though they are readily available to citizens of most Western countries. Medical, a fair chance for a College Education and many other benefits are what divide our country. Race is much less a factor than it used to be. The dividing lines are economic more than any other. This has been institutionalized here in ways that the old British class system can only be envious of. And having been institutionalized, they are creating the dependence that you mention.
The factor of race that is playing into Ron Paul's campaign is a throwback to a time that many of us thought was behind us. It is an unpleasant reminder that there are still some who will never really stop hating. It is also a reminder that this country has a long way to go to really being all it can be, the America that we believed in while we were growing up. I only hope to live for the day when that becomes a reality.
If you're saying Ron Paul is that person, well more power to ya. But how is that going to be implemented in the most basic form when it is a virtual impossibility that he'll be elected?
Worse yet, there are those who are saying that he was an opportunist to court the extreme right and fascists. If that was so than, then what is different now? Is he not the same tiger? Has he changed his stripes? Is he not the same opportunist? Is he doing the same thing to his followers now?
Most importantly, can he be trusted? In light of the past, and the present, I can not see anyway that I can seriously say that he's worthy of the office he is seeking. I grew up in a time when the President was one step below God. As an American, the Presidency is still extremely important to me even though a certain "I am not a crook" dude soured it.
And I can not in any way feel comfortable passing the baton to someone who has so much unanswered, so much baggage that is disturbing. There are also so many extremely unsavory people who are supporting him. If it were Bush in '00, Kerry in '04, Clinton or Obama today, it would be front page news if these people were in their camp. And NOT good news either.
I was very interested in Ron Paul. But until he cleans house and throws the skeletons out of his closet, I will not support him. At the present time, he seems to be uninterested in dealing with this.
If Ron Paul ever gets to the main event, these are the things that will come up. IMHO, because of this, pigs will fly through flaming hoops before he will be taken seriously. Too bad. He has some good ideas although I have yet to see how most of them could be realistically implemented.
N3ATS
01-27-2008, 10:44 PM
Steve, I respect your opinion, but must disagree. The basic necessities for a productive life are denied to Americans even though they are readily available to citizens of most Western countries. Medical, a fair chance for a College Education and many other benefits are what divide our country. Race is much less a factor than it used to be. The dividing lines are economic more than any other. This has been institutionalized here in ways that the old British class system can only be envious of. And having been institutionalized, they are creating the dependence that you mention.
Everyone has a fair chance at a good life. I don't subscribe to the notion that people are too stupid or too poor. My very point is that the government, by its policies has created this divide. They denial of these "benefits" is because the government is creating slaves of the people. The government has people convinced that they NEED these policies. People are becoming so used to this they are institutionalized.
One of the reasons medical care is so expensive because of the government's involvement in it. People suffer because of this too! Ridiculous regulations and wasteful spending are the biggest culprits.
My Grandmother who lay dieing in a nursing home some years ago needed two things. One was pain meds, specifically sub lingual morphine drops, and a oxygen machine of some sort.
Another resident of the home had died and left an entire bottle of this liquid morphine sulfate. I watched a nurse dump the entire bottle down the sink, because DEA regs mandates that narcotic meds could not be shared between patients. Meanwhile my grandmother lied there in pain for HOURS until the MEDICARE drug store that the home dealt which was 70 miles away could deliver her meds. You want to see irate? You should have been there that evening! I was tempted, seriously tempted, to drive to the south side of the city to find some heroin for her.
My grandmother's oxygen machine was being rented at a cost many, many times more than it could have been purchased for. When I questioned this out of curiosity, I was told Medicare pays for it. What a waste! How much money could have been saved if the machine was purchased, and then could be re-used?
Been there, done that, which is why SiCKO hit home. Believe me, I've become jaded to whether or not we are ever going to have a real national health care system. I will assume nothing and when my time comes, it will come. No kicking and screaming. Just go.
As far as the government causing the problem with needing education, no, they're not the problem. You need an expensive college degree to do anything these days. Whether or not you subscribe to the notion, it is a fact that not everybody has the money. Heck, some parents don't care if their kids get that far and if you have to work to survive you may not have the time, energy or money. Do you know that to be a police officer here you need a Bachelor's degree? Same to bloody collect GARBAGE. Is that rediculous? You bet. And you will still not get the job if you don't have the degree. I know people with a Masters and they're having a hard time holding on to their job.
But they have one and most without the sheepskin do not and will have a hell of a time finding one.
In most European countries an assured College education is being provided to their citizens. Why? Because it's a necessity. Saying, well, we really don't need it and we should just get rid of it, is not only shortsighted, but IMHO very foolish. It will have America lagging even further behind than we already are. But then, who needs a mechanic when we'll all be driving horse and buggies?
KC9IUX
01-28-2008, 03:44 AM
Enough crying about how I need to pay someone elses way.
The idea of a "free ride" is false.
How on earth did people survive in the US before some felt entitled to someone elses work( money)? Opening new frontiers and thriving?
If you think someone can handle your money better than you can, send it to someone you can trust, include me out.
I'll sink or swim on my own.
AE6IP
01-28-2008, 05:09 AM
How on earth did people survive in the US before some felt entitled to someone else's work( money)? Opening new frontiers and thriving?
There's never been such a time. What do you think slavery was about?
So as the rest of the developed world pulls away and leaves the US in the dust you are going to argue about who's the most self sufficient, that's hilarious!
They are replacing the US as world leaders precisely because they DO cooperate with each other to make sure everyone in their societies has a fair shake. In other words self interest takes a back seat to social necessity.
I know, that is a very difficult concept for most of you to understand so I am sure you are going to shout and drool and wave your flags, screeching some cold war rhetoric about communism or something like you usually do.
I'd just like to remind you though, it IS happening and you ARE losing out in the process. Reality doesn't care about your ideology or the color of your flag.
I'll sink or swim on my own.
And I'd like to thank you on the behalf of ideologues everywhere!
It's good to know people like you are making life changing decisions for the rest of us, god knows we aren't up to the task.
KA8DKT
01-29-2008, 10:05 PM
Precisely. Paul is not a racist.
He's an opportunist. He allowed Lew Rockwell, apparently, to write a lot of racists nonsense over Paul's signature, because it worked to get him votes. He dropped the act when it stopped working.
There are plenty of reasons to not like Paul, but in this case, it's his opportunism, not his racism.
Really. That's hardly proof nor in any way debunking this story. In fact, if he were pandering to the racists then he is the kind of opportunist that we should be wary of. Obviously he has no boundaries and will say or do anything to get votes. If he isn't what he said he was then, why should he be what he says he is now?
Nor are White's writings any proof that Paul is racist.
Paul could well have been pandering for votes, as was mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, or White could have been less than accurate.
Aside from that, some people really do grow, learn, and change. Even if he was racist thirty years ago does not necessarily mean he is now. I am not the same person as I was thirty or forty years ago, and maybe you are not either.
Instead of castigating him for possibly being racist in the distant past, you should be happy he has seen the light on this subject and give him credit for it.
-gary
Nor are White's writings any proof that Paul is racist.
Paul could well have been pandering for votes, as was mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, or White could have been less than accurate.
Aside from that, some people really do grow, learn, and change. Even if he was racist thirty years ago does not necessarily mean he is now. I am not the same person as I was thirty or forty years ago, and maybe you are not either.
Instead of castigating him for possibly being racist in the distant past, you should be happy he has seen the light on this subject and give him credit for it.
-gary
If you read a few posts beyond the first, you will see that the zebra hasn't changed it's stripes. There's things that he's mentioned just a month ago on TV that show he hasn't changed. As far as pandering to get votes, if that IS true, then isn't it also true that he's doing the same now? You'd trust someone like that? I wouldn't.:rolleyes:
W3MIV
01-29-2008, 10:29 PM
Instead of castigating him for possibly being racist in the distant past, you should be happy he has seen the light on this subject and give him credit for it.
I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Neither do I believe in the sorts of epiphanies that result in racists suddenly "seeing the light." That is worse than naive.
It is not, and it never has been an issue of Ron Paul being racist. It is, and always has been an issue of Ron Paul permitting himself to be used by racists, neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists and other denizens of the underside of the internet. When challenged -- or cornered -- he feints with a dodge about not being able to vet every donation or some other excuse that whines his way to yet another dismissal.
At best, the man is an ego-driven charlatan basking in the "evol" of bent and alienated misanthropes who would suffer the society to abandon all reason and join what is nothing more than a political cult. He is the L. Ron Hubbard of politics.
I am embarrassed to see some of the misguided regulars who are in thrall to this nonsense.
KA8DKT
01-30-2008, 03:01 PM
If you read a few posts beyond the first, you will see that the zebra hasn't changed it's stripes. There's things that he's mentioned just a month ago on TV that show he hasn't changed. As far as pandering to get votes, if that IS true, then isn't it also true that he's doing the same now? You'd trust someone like that? I wouldn't.:rolleyes:
Well, I don't trust Paul for a lot of reasons, the first being that he wants badly to be President.
Neither do I believe in the sorts of epiphanies that result in racists suddenly "seeing the light." That is worse than naive.
I don't think people change overnight. I do think people can and do change over a period of years. This does not mean I think all people do.
-gary
KW4MW
01-30-2008, 05:04 PM
I've read 2nh's intro and read or scanned through most of the posts.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan but as to calling him a racist.
John - I'll agree with you 100% that Ron Paul is a racist if you're willing to apply the same label to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK. (He claims he only joined for political expediancy )
However in 1945 he says "rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds".
Yet he's been voted into office continuously for over 50 years.
W3MIV
01-30-2008, 05:07 PM
Yet he's been voted into office continuously for over 50 years.
From West Virginia.
KW4MW
01-30-2008, 05:23 PM
From West Virginia.
OK you elitist snob - what's your point?
It seems that in the past I've sided with you on your viewpoints but it's now apparent that from your tidy little smug corner you prefer to peek out at the world from behind your monitor screen and pretend that you're smarter than anyone else on this forum.
Sorry, any the respect I've had for you has just swirled down the crapper.
Dang it- you've got me to the point that I'm siding with nx6d's opinion that you're a pompous jerk.
Why don't you just hustle on down to the local Mensa society and mingle with the rest of the self acclaimed "highly intelligent" underachievers.
Give him heck Mike. Anyone who blasts my buddy from Florida is not a nice person.
Mike is from WV. WV is cool because they doused Oklahoma in the bowl game.
Mike. You're alright.
W3MIV
01-30-2008, 05:43 PM
OK you elitist snob - what's your point?
It seems that in the past I've sided with you on your viewpoints but it's now apparent that from your tidy little smug corner you prefer to peek out at the world from behind your monitor screen and pretend that you're smarter than anyone else on this forum.
Sorry, any the respect I've had for you has just swirled down the crapper.
Dang it- you've got me to the point that I'm siding with nx6d's opinion that you're a pompous jerk.
Why don't you just hustle on down to the local Mensa society and mingle with the rest of the self acclaimed "highly intelligent" underachievers.
Goodness, such a hissy fit. I may well be a pompous jerk, but at least I'm not from West Virginia.
;)
KG4JYD
01-30-2008, 09:06 PM
Well, I don't trust Paul for a lot of reasons, the first being that he wants badly to be President.Actually you are incorrect. When Ron originally formed his exploratory committee a year ago he was reluctant. He didn't think he had a chance of winning and only wanted some face time at the debates in hopes of getting out a small government message. At best he thought he could maybe perhaps change the course of the dialog. He never in his wildest dreams thought he could win but after the first few debates and the large donations, other candidates dropping out, it keeps getting better by the day.
If you search YouTube for the video of Ron at the Google HQ you can see him discussing this. He is a very humble man, and the People have embraced the message.
John - I'll agree with you 100% that Ron Paul is a racist if you're willing to apply the same label to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK. (He claims he only joined for political expediancy )
Oh, I'll definitely agree with you on that. One difference. Byrd isn't running for national office. If he were, he'd be in the national spotlight where the media would gut him like a thanksgiving turkey.
Another thing, Byrd's supporters aren't spamming every open space, bridge, tunnel, website and blimp in God's green creation. After awhile, there's always an equal and opposite reaction.
EDIT:
OTOH, this does seem to be a case of someone who was biased changing horses, so in this case I am wrong and will admit it. Why do I say this? Lookie here Mikey:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colore d_People)'s (NAACP)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#_note-41) Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#_note-42) proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King) memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."
While I may not agree with a lot of what the NAACP does, they have never been known to back a racist. I should've checked before making that statement above. So, why did you bring up Byrd? Is it the Yin/Yang thingie?