--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gotta love Ron Paul's anti-government stance across several issues, > but yeah, he's a racist. > > Dennis Kucinich anyone?
I am not surprised that someone who is as unstable as you, Duveyoung, who plays in traffic on contraptions designed to swerve into on- coming vehicles would support someone like Dennis Kucinich. The guy's a Marxist. And a nutjob. Like attracts like. > > I am going to be surprised at who I vote for. I voted for Kerry > despite his flaws just to be sure the Dems got "control," but now, I'm > thinking to hell with anyone sucking a lobbiest's cock. > > That would include Clinton, Obama. I love Obama's vibe, and I love > Clinton's "woman's heart" potential, but they're in bed with the enemy. > > And here's Dennis with his leprachaun body and boy-voice. GAWD why > can't our heroes brawy Bruce Willis types? I'm so ashamed that I want > this. Smack me someone. > > And Ralph Nadar the dessicated, dour, dufus seems more mortician than > leader. > > Mike Gravel looks good on paper, but geeze he screams everything and > betrays a wounded heart of a man passed by. Better off with Dennis > methinks. > > Right now, today, I'd vote for Oprah just to watch her go through the > learning curves and having the pleasure of watching all the racist > misogynistist rich white guys pissing in their boots. > > Edg > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "oneradiantbeing" > <oneradiantbeing@> wrote: > > > > http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-radical-rights- man- > > in.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > > > Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington > > > > from Daily Kos: > > > > posted last May: > > > > > > THE STRANGE CASE OF LARRY PRATT > > > > In 1996, presidential candidate Pat Buchanan got in hot water when > > the Center for Public Integrity revealed connections between > > Buchanan's campaign co-chairman Larry Pratt and Pastor Pete Peters, a > > leader of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. Pratt, > > the executive director of Gun Owners of America, had been a frequent > > guest at meetings and on radio and television programs hosted by > > Peters, who inveighed against "Talmudic filth" as Pratt looked on. On > > February 15, 1996, Pratt took a leave of absence from the Buchanan > > campaign, so as to avoid causing a "distraction." > > > > The very next day, reported the San Antonio Express-News on February > > 18, Ron Paul distributed a press release touting Pratt's endorsement > > of Paul's candidacy for the U.S. Congress. Pratt's endorsement of > > Paul was anything but pro forma; the February 22, 1996 issue of Roll > > Call noted that Paul and Mike Gunn, a Republican candidate for > > Congress in Mississippi who had done some work for David Duke in the > > latter's 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial campaign, were the only two > > candidates formally endorsed for office that year by Pratt's > > organization. Paul's opponent in the Republican primary, Rep. Greg > > Laughlin, called upon Paul to repudiate Pratt; Paul declined to do > > so, with his spokesman saying that Paul opposed racism but > > that "nothing has been proven against Mr. Pratt. He has denied it." > > (Pratt's enthusiasm for Paul continues to this day, as this quasi- > > endorsement of Paul's 2008 presidential campaign makes clear.) > > > > THE COMPANY RON PAUL KEEPS > > > > Paul's disinclination to separate himself from the Larry Pratts of > > the world is part of a pattern that over the last 20 years has seen > > him snuggling up to some extremely questionable characters on the far > > right fringe. Like, for example, secessionists, who gathered at a > > conference in April of 1995 to hear Paul speak about the "once and > > future Republic of Texas." Or the beady-eyed listeners of The > > Political Cesspool. It's the unofficial radio program of the Council > > of Conservative Citizens--you know, the repainted White Citizens > > Council that got Trent Lott into a bit of trouble a few years ago. > > (Tune in tonight for their special program on "the disastrous Brown > > vs. Topeka Board of Education decision, one which ushered in an era > > of radical leftist ideology upon the American citizenry.") Paul has > > been a guest on the program; you'll find him listed under P, right > > above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo. > > > > Or the crazy-as-fuck John Birch Society, to which Paul is more than > > happy to grant the occasional interview and even speak at their > > dinners (the podcast, I am sorry to report, no longer seems to be > > available). In fact, Paul is the only member of Congress to receive a > > perfect 100 from the John Birch Society in its most recent member > > ratings. > > > > THE KLAN'S MAN IN WASHINGTON > > > > Like many members of Congress, the prolific Paul posts his speeches, > > columns, and statements on his House Web site. He allows anyone to > > republish and distribute them, and many do. For example, our old > > friends the Council of Conservative Citizens occasionally publish > > Paul in its newsletter, the Citizens Informer (warning: PDF). And > > then there's David Duke, who can't get enough of Ron Paul; you can > > find his columns on davidduke.com here and here and here and here and > > here. If you're more of a dead-tree fan, you can find Paul's thoughts > > on foreign policy reprinted in the January 2007 issue of the National > > Times, a white supremacist newspaper that apparently gets distributed > > through the time-honored neo-Nazi method of throwing the thing onto > > unsuspecting people's porches in the middle of the night and > > scurrying away. > > > > For a real look inside the tiny, demented mind of the neo-Nazi, > > though, we need to go to Stormfront. Stormfront is the oldest and > > largest white supremacist site on the World Wide Web; its discussion > > boards provide an unequaled opportunity for eavesdropping on the > > thoughts and plans of the racist underground in America and around > > the world. And you don't have to visit for very long before one thing > > jumps out at you: they positively adore Ron Paul. (Please note that > > links in this paragraph go to a hate site and should probably be > > considered NSFW.) An "Is Ron Paul the One?" topic is currently > > stickied in Stormfront's Newslinks & Articles forum; another active > > topic on Paul's candidacy has received 446 posts and 12,040 pageviews > > since late March. A topic called "Ron Paul's Race Problem" (hey, > > Wonkette musta read my diary!) was just started today and already has > > 17 replies. They're busy little racists over there. > > > > DOES ANY OF THIS STUFF REALLY MATTER? > > > > Politicians can't choose their supporters, after all. Isn't it a bit > > unfair to tar Paul by association to these lunatics? No, it isn't. > > This stuff matters because Paul makes so little effort to > > disassociate himself from the racist, anti-Semitic, crackpot groups > > that support him. Whether he shares these groups' beliefs or not, the > > fact that he doesn't care enough to do anything about them speaks > > volumes. I'll wrap up by turning the floor over to Eric Dondero, a > > senior aid to Paul from 1997 to 2003, who had this to say in a blog > > comment in May: > > > > Ron Paul has had some ties that are nothing to be proud of in the > > past to far-right groups. My former boss IS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. > > However, he is grossly inattentive in dealing with groups who are > > blatantly anti-Semitic. > > > > ...Whether they are using him to gain in credibility, or whether it's > > just coincidence doesn't matter much. It's the image that counts. No > > doubt this will all come to haunt him in his race for the Presidency. > > > > > > MORE FROM LAST MAY'S DAILY KOS: > > > > RON PAUL HATES YOU! > > > > Let's have a look at some of the many, many issues on which Ron Paul > > places himself squarely in opposition to me and, presumably, you: > > > > Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the > > right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. > > 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from > > conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell > > bill. > > > > The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not > > a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization > > gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent > > Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn't fare much better > > in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of > > Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is > > driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th > > Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic > > National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE > > contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to > > allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay > > royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par > > for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, > > bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism > > masquerading as environmentalism." > > > > Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing > > on immigration, calling last month's compromise immigration bill "a > > compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a > > compromise of the Second Amendment." Yet even the hardcore nativists > > in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing > > birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as > > Paul has done. His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as > > H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the > > date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, > > neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who > > owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a > > citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of > > birth in the United States." Only four other Representatives, all > > Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment. > > > > Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote. > > Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against > > reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the > > bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill. > > > > But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America: > > you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he > > writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate > > racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it > > views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know. > > (Apparently, saying that "[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black > > teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" > > is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for > > free-market economics.) > > > > Gay Rights: Paul's rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to > > take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even > > reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso > > facto evidence of bigotry. His reflexive opposition to the Civil > > Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian > > positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free > > from government "coercion," even if that means limiting the ability > > of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination. > > > > Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to > > gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian > > Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, > > has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the > > beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the "Federal Marriage > > Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he > > actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which > > would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to > > the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. "The definition > > of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any > > dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous > > claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars > > agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be > > unconstitutional. > > > > You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the > > Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal > > the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from > > serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take > > their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't > > want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the > > military, either. > > > > On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates > > homosexuality with "sexual deviance." And let's not forget his wink- > > wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a far leftist with very > > close female friends". > > > > Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of > > Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping > > the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict > > constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally- mandated > > separation of church and state. "Religious morality will always > > inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths," he > > writes. "...The collectivist left" --that's you!-- "is threatened by > > strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing > > federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our > > society.... So the real motivation behind the insistence on a > > separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First > > amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of > > religious conservatives at the ballot box." > > > > And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might > > take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr. > > Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts > > from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson's Family Research > > Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard. > > > > International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere, > > Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un- > > American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled > > with non-Americans, so you certainly won't find Ron Paul lifting a > > finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is > > taking place. I guess that's why he's one of only four members of > > Congress to receive an "F" rating on Darfur from the Genocide > > Intervention Network. > > > > Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about > > Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have > > been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it? > > Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 > > percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little > > better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score > > for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it > > beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.) > > > > And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much > > use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" > > rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not > > easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with > > only six other members of the House. > > > > Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously > > believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this > > country, here's what Ron Paul thinks of you: > > > > * "[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system > > championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with > > such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in > > this country simply doesn't believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they > > believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it > > via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical 'social > > justice.'... The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: > > divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth > > and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If > > one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it- > > even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them.... Upward mobility > > is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas > > collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are." > > * "Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of > > becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment > > of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful > > people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from > > humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually > > impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the > > pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a > > society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the > > polls." > > > > Screw this; this diary's way too long already. Worker rights: Voted > > to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine > > safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes. > > Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans' lies about the > > programs' solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy > > bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits. > > Universal health care: don't make me laugh. Privatizing everything: > > the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations. > > > > "But he's against the war!" Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is > > David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire > > today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to > > praise their "independence," to gush about how well of course I > > wouldn't vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you > > truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he > > oppose the war? > > > > Think about it. > > > > Posted by Adam Holland at 1:20 AM > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > >
