An #Occupier said something interesting about Ron Paul...

[Fire Walk With Me]

That Ron Paul appears to be reasonable. And that this is dangerous.

I don't know much about Ron Paul excepting that his supporters are beginning to make me squirm. They post in the #Occupy livestream chats, which are of course dedicated to a movement of leaders and are not seeking one. They don't get that. I'm one of those who have tired of throwing support behind any sort of (Fickle) Father Figure. Don't want another one...

Would you give me please some DU love by explaining what is questionable and less than questionable about Ron? I noted one LA #Occupier's car had a Ron Paul bumper sticker :/

[MADem]

1. He is a racist, homophobic, bigoted asshole.

Here ya go--print this up and hand it out:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html

[this bird has flown]

18. Paul was confronted on this by someone on this very recently...

I can't remember if it was Sean Hannity or who but he claimed that he knew nothing about what had been written. Besides this mysterious handout, is there any other proof of his supposed racism?

Because take this to the bank: those who support the war machine will ALSO be downing Paul. Have you heard the latest diatribe by El Rushbo? He says that Paul is to the left of Obama! Rush makes his dough by beating the drums of war. Obama is a person of color and yet continuing to lean towards military action. So what difference does it really make at the end of the day?

[MADem]

20. Your logic is faulty. You assert a cause-effect that does not hold up

under even a cursory glance. People are "downing" Paul because he is a bigoted, racist asshole. You go on and take THAT to your little bank.


Did you even bother to read the link? Plainly not. It's not a "mysterious handout," it's a sourced article. You really need to do better if you want to be convincing, you know.


Are you planning on voting for the racist asshole?

If you go far enough to the left, you end up on the FAR RIGHT.

Really.

[this bird has flown]

27. First of all, chill. You sound all worked up.

I did read the link, they say that there was no name on the articles so it cannot be directly linked to him. That makes sense. If anyone on the right had proof of Paul having written that, he'd be toast by now.

Am I planning to vote for him? Even if I did, I live in a blue state so I doubt my vote would do much. But we will see what happens when the heat and spotlight go on him. He might be exposed or he might turn out to be innocent. Time will tell...

[MADem]

31. You do not know me, so please don't tell me how you think I "sound."

Those redirection/characterization efforts don't work on me. Stick to the topic. I am sufficiently "chilled," I simply have a very low tolerance for nonsense as well as racist assholes like Ron Paul.

You might want to read the link more carefully, particularly the last paragraph. The "plausible deniability" asserted by the lack of an author wilts under scrutiny. If you're truly interested in learning the truth about this racist, homophobic, sexist old man, you might pull the string and do some research on your own. I would not be surprised if that proposal does not appeal to you.

I would suggest that, being new, you read the TOS for this website before you post further, as you might be unclear as to the purpose and goals of this little corner of the internet. Here's a link to it, to expedite your journey: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[this bird has flown]

32. Instead of posting me the rules for DU, could you please post CONCRETE PROOF of Paul's racism,

homophobia, and sexism? Until you do that, all the hysterics are not convincing. Thanks in advance.

[vaberella]

33. I can definitely attest to his racism.

He did not believe that the government should have intervened in slavery or in segregation. He felt that the government over it's power and that the state should have the right to follow what ever rule of law they wanted too. He adamantly believes the government never should have sent US Marshalls to desegregate schools or to force restaurants to service Blacks.

Ultimately...this is a man who supports racist policies...some of which were state wide because of his strong ideological standing. Actually this would then fall into the fields of homophobic and sexist...ie he's 100% against the 14th Amendment or Affirmative Action which encompasses those things and was bred from civil unrest with the aid of federal government intervention.

You may not see that as racism. But anyone who lets their ideology take over their good sense...and would continue to allow slavery, segregation, the snuffing of women's rights and homosexual rights because he felt federal government intervention went too far is someone who is racist, homophobic, and sexist. These are wrongs and he would have ensured they continued if the state wished for them to continue.

You can do an easy google search on this.

[this bird has flown]

35. First of all, I think we have to dig a bit deeper

I am not a Ron Paul fanatic, by the way, but I can see how this sort of thing gets spread around. But there are many people who are examining the 14th Ammendment, not because they want a return to slavery and segregation, but because of the children of undocumented immigrants having the same rights as other native-born citizens. The idea of desegregation in itself is probably some sort of strict Constitutionalist view rather than a racist's ideology.

And to tell the truth, I don't see Paul as an idealogue. He took earmarks for his constituents and the governor of FL, Rick Scott, rejected high-speed rail funds because of his fanaticism! So many people were prevented from employment in FL and yet Paul put aside his own views to properly represent his electorate.

[tama]

37. Consistent from an anti-statist/anarchist point of view

No government should establish slavery and segregation and discrimination to begin with. No government = no laws to legislate and force slavery, segregation or any form of state sanctioned discrimination against any group.

[this bird has flown]

42. Thank you for stating it that way!

Because then you have to ask why is someone for states' rights? Does it mean that they are supportive of slavery? I feel more and more that allowing federal laws to usurp states' ones is causing many problems (and no, I am not in a militia, LOL!). For instance, although I am not into pot nor believe that it is the cure of disease, I do feel that it is better than pills. Some states have allowed for medical marihuana and yet the feds are breaking up the pot dispenseries!

[tama]

52. Federalism

states on top of themselves - If Ron Paul would be really anti-statist libertarian, he would not be only against Federal state powers, but also against the sub-states.

Why should any state have power to persecute any marijuana user?

[JustAnotherGen]

82. No - step into the last century

State's Rights is a 'dog whistle' for returning to Jim Crow. The USA won the war against the johnny reb confeds. Then welcome said states back into the fold. They allowed men who had been part of the Confed Regime to vote, and fully participate in American politics.

Those same men, forgiven for all (rolling my eyes here) - then turned around and established their states rights for another 100 years. The Fed Stepping put an end to those rights for ever in the mid 1960's.

I don't understand why Paulites are so concerned about slavery? Certainly - that's the old issue. My father was a black child in Jim Crow. That's a VERY REAL Thing. A black child growing up in Alabama in the 1940's and 1950's knew very well that 'state's rights' meant that if a 13 year old black male child whistled at a white woman his lynching would sanctioned by his 'state'.

I could give a shit less about slavery - what Paul is getting folks all moist and hard about on the right is the idea that they can returned to 'better times' when 'darkies' like me knew their place.

Do you understand now - or do you need me to also explain the history of the 'Welfare Queen' and how that's a dog whistle too?

And I apologize to any dog's feelings that might be hurt as a result of me comparing "I'm not racist like THAT people" to a sweet, innocent, and loyal being.

[MADem]

39. I did. Read the material I provided. Then read the TOS.

The only "hysterics" are coming from you, I fear.

[abelenkpe]

72. I can't believe you are asking someone here for proof of Pauls racism and bigotry

when even a cursory google search by the most inept and lazy fool can easily find plenty.

[pnwmom]

77. Ron Paul already acknowledged those writings. Here's your proof.

I urge you to go to the link and acquaint yourself with the documentation of this side of Ron Paul.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments. For a chronological Nexis tour of Paul's 1996 responses, please read on.

The first time I can find reporting on the controversy is in the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]


MUCH MORE AT THE LINK

[freshstart]

53. There is plenty on Ron Paul

I spent a lot of time digging it up, so please review and share.

There are many replies from me and links in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2377322

[Zorra]

58. Yes, exactly right. nt

[tblue37]

71. If by "ugly" they mean physically so, that is both untrue and irrelevant.

I am against all of Ron Paul's stands except those that are the same as ours (anti wars of choice, anti the extension of the fascist police state, etc.), but I am also anti any claim that looks are a criterion for electing or not electing a candidate. Furthermore, he isn't "ugly." He just looks like an ordinary elderly man with a slight physique.

[blm]

75. people's positions make them ugly to me....looking at Romney or Paul I still see ugly fascists

who want to take their turn at giving corporate elite everything it demands - their NWO. Funny that Paul knows damn well Bushes have been leading the charge for NWO's global fascism, but, would never dare utter the truth to his supporters that he AGREES with NWO's bottom line - let CORPORATIONS rule the world. Corporate elite are intent on becoming the new royalty, the new dictators. Bottom line to anything rePaul....he's been on board with the fascist agenda of NWO in every one of his MANY pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-labor votes.

[tblue37]

91. I don't think refusing to focus on a person's looks, whether that person is male or female, is

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)

a sign of having been "brainwashed." I don't make fun of men's looks--or of women's--and I certainly do not consider the lack of physical beauty, male or female, to be in any way relevant to a person's character or to his or her qualifications for any job, public or private, except, of course, for those jobs that are specifically about looks--e.g., being a model or a beauty contest winner.

[tblue37]

96. Men and women both are judged on looks in our culture, though of course

women suffer more under lookism than men do. But plastic surgeons also do a brisk business in fixing up men, though again, women are more likely to go in for such surgery, and are likely to feel the social pressure that makes them feel they need such surgery.

Nowadays, many men also (also, because women do so even more) have surgery to enhance their looks, not just to attract mates, but also to get ahead in their profession. We all know that good looking people tend to get jobs more easily, to get better jobs, and to get paid more. They also get away with stuff others can't get away with on the job. This is true for both men and women. But in our culture, women are judged primarily on looks, regardless of any other quality or accomplishment they bring to the table, no matter how outstanding. Men are judged on other traits and accomplishments, sometimes even more than they are judged on looks.

I also happen to think that there has been more emphasis on male "hotness" lately in our society than in the past. I read an article recently about the HBO series Boardwalk Empire on which a reader complained about the killing of the young male co-lead. The reader's complaint was that with that young guy gone, there were no good looking men in lead roles (the marvelous but not beautiful Steve Buscemi is the star), and that in fact the show seemed to be aiming to have the ugliest male cast of any series on TV, as though casting actors who look like real people is simply intolerable.

But when discussing who should serve in important public offices, I think looks are absolutely irrelevant, and I hate the idea of bringing them in at all, though of course I realize that a lot of people--probably most--do so. I don't think Ron Paul is particularly "ugly." I think his looks are quite ordinary for a man his age. In fact, if he were less opposed to most of what I consider to be decent values, I would probably consider him “cute” for a little elderly man, in a pixyish sort of way. But even if he were hideously ugly, I still would consider that to be irrelevant. I despise his positions on most issues, and even if he were "hot," I would still recoil at the idea of his being elected president.

I happen to think Obama is incredibly attractive, but I also consider that to be irrelevant to his role as president. As Bill Maher likes to say, he is not our boyfriend! As much as I detest Sarah Palin, I think she is a very pretty woman (though she seems unattractive now because of the ugly things she says, the ugly positions she espouses, and the ugly things she does). Nevertheless, I knew nothing about her when McCain first selected her, and when I saw the picture of her for the first time, my immediate reaction was, “Wow! She is very pretty.” But I hate the idea that her physical beauty is a major reason why so many people--especially Republican men--are all about electing her as president. And, as many have pointed out, Abraham Lincoln would probably be considered too unattractive to win votes these days.

I know women suffer most under the extreme lookism of our society, and I deplore it, but I still don't think looks should be an issue when deciding whom to elect for important public offices. I also really hate the idea of mocking people for their looks--though I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I have occasionally joked about pictures in which Callista Gingrich and Laura Bush resemble Jack Nicholson as the Joker.

On the other hand, both of those women are actually quite pretty (yes, even Callista--she has to work hard to not look as attractive as she actually is; looking too pretty would be awkward since she is "the other woman" who was sleeping with Gingrich while he was still married to wife #3). I certainly would never have made such a joke if either woman were actually homely or genuinely ugly. Most of the time pretty people can withstand a little needling when for some reason their usualy good looks are mussed a bit by awkward circumstances.

Oh--and no, we do not have many male beauty contests in our society, thank goodness, though male models and TV and movie stars (and news readers) are also subjected to lookist stadards. I wish we didn't have female beauty contests either. I especially hate that so many of those ridiculous thigns are touted as frickin' scholarship contests! Of course, we do have the parallel situation where young men who have neither an outstanding intellect nor, in many cases, an adequate educational foundation are given the most complete college scholarships simply because they can play basketball or football. Both situations are ridiculous!

[femrap]

99. asidjfg

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

[MADem]

74. Yes, he is indeed no friend to women or anyone who respects the right of choice.

I think part of the reason he hasn't gotten the tough scrutiny--yet, anyway-- has to do with what the article I posted noted, that no one really thinks he has a chance of winning, so they focus on the flailing and foibles of the "possibles."

All he has to do is win or place in a single early primary/caucus, and that will change.

[blm]

2. Ask them to name ONE pro-corporation piece of legislation that Paul voted AGAINST.

Ask them to name ONE pro-consumer or pro-labor piece of legislation that Paul voted FOR.

The bottom line re Ron Paul is that the freedom he believes in MOST is for corporations to OWN control of this country and our lives.

[Aerows]

6. They already do

And that is why a lot of people are frustrated. Ron Paul's policies could make them worse, certainly, but I'm not interested in a candidate that will keep things the way they are, because they are bad anyway. We need people that want to make things BETTER for the people, not just preserve the advantage for the 1% and give the 99% crumbs while telling us to be grateful things aren't worse.

That's what a lot of politicians are missing.

[blm]

14. Paul's policies WOULD DEFINITELY give corporations GREATER control over our lives and THAT is

what some idiots want to ignore and give mumbled replies because they KNOW it's the truth that they NEED to ignore to sound like they are open-minded and willing to listen even to one of the biggest hypocrites in politics, especially in regard to personal freedoms - Ron Paul and his selfish, idiot son, Rand.

Paul's way would have corporations MAILING you your notice of rights in the small print in your monthly bill. That's the BOTTOM LINE. It doesn't matter what he says or does that 'sounds' like it makes sense - the BOTTOM LINE is all that matters when you total up a person's ACTUAL votes and positions.

[blm]

16. PS:You also missed the point that Paul's votes HELPED corporations gain that control

they already have now. Why he gets a free pass on that is yet to be explained by any Pauldrone.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Unfortunately, there appears to be no such candidate on the horizon.

"We need people that want to make things BETTER for the people, not just preserve the advantage for the 1% and give the 99% crumbs while telling us to be grateful things aren't worse."

[blm]

21. And it certainly isn't Pro-corporate everything Paul.

.

[Jackpine Radical]

45. That's for Goddam sure.

[Zalatix]

29. Excellent point.

This should be hammered home at all OWS meetings. Everywhere.

Ron Paul has in fact never voted for any pro-labor or pro-consumer legislation.

[blm]

43. Thank you - they want to pretend Paul would be a benign fascist.

.

[Zalatix]

49. But why are there so few people willing to take action?

I posted a thread about how to expose Ron Paul now and prevent years of angst over his supporters later, and it's almost sunk off the front page already.

I even gave a link to all of Ron Paul's votes and a quick run-down of his recent anti-99% votes that would be enough to scare OWS away.

I understand the need to complain on DU but when someone actually proposes meaningful ACTION, man, no one really pays much attention...

[blm]

68. I know...been here for nearly a decade.

I just KEEP ON keeping on.

[Zorra]

61. + a trillion. They are the exact opposite of Occupy. nt

[newspeak]

70. yes, paul believes in the free market fairy

he does not believe government should interfere (regulation) with business. If you think corporations have more power now, if paul won the presidency it'll be "buyer beware for everyone" and the enron, s&l, big bank bailouts will be minor compared to how we will be under siege with his concepts of libertarianism. It's one thing to be a libertarian for peoples' rights (except for those dang women's bodies); however, practicing it with global too big to fail greedy businesses-it would be the plebes in the shark pool.

Oh, they've been hammering away at labor rights for years, with no protections for labor; well, again, the corporations will have themselves some nice little slaves.

[Aerows]

3. People all over the place are starting to talk about Ron Paul

The anger over the bank bailouts and no prosecutions, the trampling of our Constitutional rights - they are getting to people that are ordinarily rational.

The fact that there are so many talking about Ron Paul should tell the people in Congress and those in the White House and the 1% that business [bi] cannot continue as it has been.[/bi] It can't. The people are not going to put up with it anymore, regardless of their political affiliation.

Do I agree with Ron Paul? Not on most things, but on a few things he is absolutely right. The things he is wrong on overshadow the things he is right on, but it's enough to send most people over the edge since we are still doing business as usual.

I'm a Democratic party member. I will vote for Obama because I hate the alternative, but candidly, I wouldn't weep bitter tears if Ron Paul won unless he took up his more radical "fuck the poor" agenda (which I suspect he would, so that ends that delusion).

The problem is that we are picking between right wing and right wing-lite. No one seems to get the message that it's time to veer to the left before we drive off the cliff.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Thanks. #Occupy gets it, and will if I am trend-watching well enough

and taking hints from the right people, continue to become a force against bullshit (in politics more importantly in this example), and will hopefully force some truth and 99%-friendly goals upon the election process.

Or as I hope, fully supercede it at some not-too-distant point, with true Democracy.

[Aerows]

8. Occupy does get it

And that's why I support Occupy. Thank you for your tireless efforts to help keep everyone on DU in the loop with it, Fire. I sincerely appreciate all that you do.

[Aerows]

13. United

We don't have to be uniform in ideology to be united in purpose. I remind myself of that often

[NorthCarolina]

48. #Occupy does get it,

and they know that were the campaign to come down to Ron Paul and Obama, Ron Pauls positions on issues such as ending foreign wars, leaving a contingent of 17,000 in Iraq, the Federal Reserve, and closing military bases abroad would place Obama on the defensive, and force him to take on a more progressive position on these issues than he currently has.

[abelenkpe]

73. Ron Paul is against a minimum wage, against unions, against regulating businesses

against the department of education, the epa, would do away with civil rights, and firmly believes there is never any reason a woman needs to or should have an abortion. I guess he could come up with an even more "fuck the poor" agenda? But honestly I think most of the wacky right wing rhetoric we hear from Bachmann, Perry, and Newt is inspired by Ron Paul, his popularity and his followers. Tea partiers and the new radical right wingers resemble Libertarian (by that I mean Paulites not the European flavor) beliefs and positions. Ron Paul is actually the person we should be most concerned about if nominated as he is the only one who polls well against Obama. I know someone will come along within seconds of posting this to say he'll never get nominated, but he's the one I worry most about. His followers are rabid and their posts violent. He scares the crap out of me.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. And that's already enough right there...how are people overlooking this?

Worse, are they motivated to overlook it?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

93. Because Ron Paul is a sneaky bastard

You have to be a hell of a politician to convince people you aren't a politician after being in Congress for that long.

I find most of his supporters to be smart people who don't know shit about politics because in their own words they "hate it". They have been fooled by him.

[mmonk]

7. They were told to infiltrate and direct the movement

to focus on the federal reserve. The problem with that tact is who they gave money to under the table. Wall Street and the mortgage bankers of course who OWS is already focusing on.

[Aerows]

10. The Federal Reserve

IS a problem. The major banks get (essentially) interest-free money from the Fed and then turn around and charge interest to the American people while profiting handsomely. The "Fed" isn't a government institution - it's also a private bank. There are HUGE problems with a central bank that controls all. I disagree that everyone who recognizes the Fed's role in destabilizing the economy to the benefit of a very few investors is a deluded Ron Paul supporter.

It's simply not true. The Fed does not WANT you to know it's role. It revels in people believing it is a government institution, so that it can continue to aid the banks in manipulating markets. That has nothing to do with being paid, OWS, or anything other than bothering to cut through the bullcrap that the Fed itself has attempted to permeate our discourse with - primarily, that we cannot survive without its hand.

We can.

We did just fine before they became the invisible hand in 1912.

That isn't germane to this discussion, however. I just thought I would clear up some misconceptions that everyone who recognizes the Federal Reserve for what it is, a parasite, is a Ron Paul supporter.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

[mmonk]

15. I don't think I said that.

I was pointing out why they are there. I support what Paul & Sanders' attempted to shed light on and seek accountability.

[Aerows]

23. You said

"They were told to infiltrate and direct the movement to focus on the federal reserve. The problem with that tact is who they gave money to under the table."

I'm unsure what other conclusion I could draw from this sentence other than the fact that you are saying that there are many in the 99% movement whom are getting paid.

[blm]

44. and yet Paul STILL gives his votes and support to pro-FED corporations who PROFIT

from the Fed's decisions a helluva lot more than any 99%er. And THERIN lies the direct contradiction between Ron Paul's words and Ron Paul's VOTES supporting every piece of pro-corporate and anti-consumer/labor legislation that came his way.

Paul supporters from OWS are either hypocrites themselves or are candycoating Paul's fascist bullshit intentionally.

[MADem]

40. Were they told to "infiltrate" blogs and message boards, as well, I wonder?

It just seems that there's a lot of Ron Paul crap lapping up against the old message board shores, lately.

[blm]

46. BINGO!

That's exactly what is happening.

[freshwest]

95. Proof of where their marching orders come from:

Alex Jones Launches ‘Occupy the Fed’ to Counter ‘Occupy Wall Street’
Posted by Grant J. Kidney on October 4th, 2011
end-the-fed

Dissatisfied with the anti-Capitalist fervor displayed by the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ crowd, conspiratorial minded radio host Alex Jones has today launched the ‘Occupy the Federal Reserve’ movement.

Citing unsubstantial claims concerning the Occupy Wall Street crowd concerning their apparent “wishing for taxes on the middle class” and a passion for getting Obama re-elected in 2012, Alex Jones’ website, INFOWARS.com stated,

“Focus should instead be on the real source of power for the out-of-control bankster class- the private, unaccountable Federal Reserve bank that creates money out of thin air, issues secret loans to insiders and foreign governments and systematically institutes debt on the American people through their undue powers.”

Alex Jones and co. are correct in their assumption that the Federal Reserve system is a big problem for the United States economically speaking. However, the Fed is not the root cause of our economic woes. Systems like the Federal Reserve are only allowed to operate in a world plagued by a much greater, overarching threat- Capitalism.

Millionaires like Jones and his sponsors are frightened by the anti-money fervor displayed by the thousands of folks who’ve lost their homes and their jobs and who are now taking to the streets in utter rage.

In order to protect the very system that has made Jones and others like him filthy rich, expect to see major attempts from those considered “alternative” (politically speaking) to squash the emergence of a crowd that wishes to see money and resources spread out equally among the masses.

http://grantjkidney.com/alex-jones-launches-occupy-the-fed-to-counter-occupy-wall-street/

And there's this, where they are doing Alex Jones' bidding of diverting people and going for the 9/11 thing. I've watched videos of preaching to the people in NYC. They are feeding off the energy of Occupy to help Ron Paul (GOP):

Forum Post: Anti-OWS trolls have taken over this entire forum

http://occupywallst.org/forum/anti-ows-trolls-have-taken-over-this-entire-forum/

That being said, Paul has helped some people such as Kucinich and Paul on things that Democrats wanted for a long time. And he may not personally be a bad person, but in the end, he's a corporate tool who refuses to come out of his Cold War era mentality and accept that capitalism is not the answer for everything. He contradicts himself talking of medical freedom and then not opposing Texas's anti-abortion law that affects only women. I've also listened to 'Mr liberty and freedom Jones' praise the new bagger majorities in several states enacting their anti-abortion and anti-secular initiatives. These folks are either ignorant of what they're doing, or complicit in taking this country back over a hundred years.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Compared to the non-Mitt candidates running, Ron sounds more reasonable than the rest.

But one only has to read up on his positions to know how really nutty he is.

[Ship of Fools]

11. Women are baby machines to Ron Paul. Period.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. If Ron Paul had his way untrammeled, woman would lose the

right to choose enshrined under Roe v. Wade and the decision would be handed back to individual states.

Paul's belief in 'states rights' has deeply racist and misogynist tones, completely at odds with a program that puts forward the interest of the 99%.

That right there is a show-stopper for me as regards Paul, his other wacky positions notwithstanding.

[vaberella]

34. If Ron Paul had his way segregation and slavery would be back. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

62. Not sure about the slavery part (as Paul harkens back to a late-19th

century vision of unregulated capitalism but one that is post-slavery). However, Paul's valorization of states' rights suggests that segregation might indeed make a come-back, keeping in mind that Jim Crow grew also out of that same post-slavery era (at least if I remember C. Vann Woodward's work on the subject properly).

[Starry Messenger]

17. Ron Paul's supporters are usually parasitic opportunists.

The remind me of Scientologists. This article has a list of things that should make clear what is questionable about Ron Paul:

"Why progressives should not support Ron Paul"
http://peoplesworld.org/why-progressives-should-not-support-ron-paul/

<snip>

Paul's supporters have tried to promote the notion that his positions are pro-LGBT in his own, libertarian way. However, his libertarian dogma, which his supporters claim treats lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens in a "live and let live" fashion, does not advance LGBT rights in any way. While he opposed the draconian federal amendment banning marriage equality, he stated that he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and he is not against individual states practicing discrimination against their gay and lesbian residents.

Paul opposed the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas which banned prohibitions on sodomy, whose real targets are any gay or lesbian activity, claiming that the Constitution provides no protections for those wishing to engage in "sodomy." This seems surprising from a man who wishes to legalize heroin - hardly a practice protected by the Constitution..

Moreover, Paul opposed the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would have prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Additionally, he opposed expanding hate crimes protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

It's not just gays and lesbians that Paul seems unwilling to protect against discrimination, Paul says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended racially motivated voter suppression and segregation in schools and businesses. He argues that it "reduced civil liberty" and violates private property rights. In 2006 he voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which helps to remove barriers to minority voting, again citing property rights, and claiming that it was too costly.

If that hasn't turned off progressives, perhaps a look at his economic policies will. Paul supported a 10 percent flat income tax during his 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference speech. The big beneficiaries of that would be the richest people in our country, who would have their taxes drastically reduced. Not only would this completely defund the majority of all social and educational programs provided by the government, it would also likely increase the income disparity that has been exacerbated since the onset of "supply-side" economics. In another seemingly populist assist to the super-rich, he often proposes abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.

<snip>

He's rancid and no good!

[MADem]

22. Rancid and no good, indeed.

He'd really give people something to cry about!

Edit--I misspelled rancid as "racid!"

[coalition_unwilling]

63. I actually appreciate your neologism 'racid' (a hybrid of

'racist' and 'rancid' - seems to capture Paul almost perfectly

[MADem]

66. You got that right! nt

[musette_sf]

25. He would, by default, criminalize abortion in over half of the country

(hooray for States' Rights), AND would legalize prostitution.

Because liberty for women is to choose to sell your body for sexual exploitation.

But liberty to decide when, where, how, and with whom to start or grow your family is against the Constitution and should be decided by local fiat.

[Aerows]

30. Cartoon says it all

And kind of explains why my father was so vicious toward Wonder Woman, talking about how big her butt looked in her outfit, as though she should be ashamed for having an ass at all.

Conservatives.

Oh how they love to attempt to scar us with their ugly perceptions, and end up revealing their true selves.

[gateley]

24. He does sound reasonable - when you hear a sound bite here and there. But people

need to look further (fat chance) to see who he really is.

[dionysus]

26. other than his stance on war and drugs, he's a freak.

he'd end all govt regulations and destroy the safety net we have left.
see post 17

[MH1]

28. He's the new LaRouche, and sadly, more effective at it, at least at the moment.

He's a follower of Ayn Rand. Randism is about completely unfettered, unregulated capitalism. Food safety standards? Work safety standards? Environmental regulations? Endangered species? Clean air, clean water? Baa, we don't need none of that! Just let the corporations do what they want, and they will benevolently do everything right and will do no harm to anyone ever. Yeah, that's what they think.

Oh, he's a racist and anti-choice as well.

[mirabeau]

36. Well...the occupiers are mostly college kids.

They won't be too happy when they no longer get student aid or loans.

[MADem]

51. And they be forced to go out and find any work they can....

...because their contribution to the family unit won't be optional, it will be vital to keeping the proverbial wolf from the door, after RP ensures that Granny's social security has been cut off, she's been tossed out of the nursing home on her poore auld bony ass, and she's living with mom in the kid's old room, and the kid has been moved to the basement!

But hey, Ron is da man....he'll legalize that weed! Rah rah Ron!

[Aerows]

38. This IS OWS

&feature=related

[emcguffie]

41. I am not saying this to suggest I support or like Ron Paul.

I just have an observation -- why I think so many young people or unhappy Republicans or Independents or sometime Dems might be attracted to him. Maybe this is really obvious to everyone, if so I apologize.

The attraction certainly isn't because of all of his positions, most of which we never see him discuss. What one sees when watching the political show, just generally, is that Ron Paul stands apart from his Republican brethren on a couple of very obvious libertarian-style points -- the Federal Reserve, an issue about which, in general terms, I myself agree with him, and the legalization of drugs, although he may have changed his position on that. And I could be wrong here. Haven't watched a single Republican debate. I'm not trying to say I am staying on top of him either.

I can't remember if I have ever heard him say anything about sexuality or choice.

What stands out in my mind is that he has taken a stand on a couple of libertarian points, and those points happen to be ones that can appeal to left-leaning liberals, taken apart from everything else. But, of course, there's the rub -- the stuff we don't hear about.

And so lots of unhappy citizens, particularly young people, see him attack the Federal Reserve and stand up for personal liberty and personal responsibility, and the right for the individual to make his/her own choices. And that is very different from the other Republicans, so he stands out, and some are attracted to that. My 18-year-old daughter, who is very left-leaning, gets very over-wrought about the whole nanny-state business. She really believes individuals should be allowed to choose for themselves, even if it is really bad for them. Drugs shouldn't be illegal because they are bad for you. Seat belts shouldn't be required, you should be allowed to risk your life if you want. (Of course, there are obvious arguments against that; please don't get me wrong.)

Obviously, they are not seeing a complete picture of Ron Paul. They may just be seeing or registering that he might be really good for change, and they see the Federal Reserve as at the heart of our biggest problems.

I remember the first time I came across any Libertarian info myself. It was on the street, and I was handed some materials, and those materials were stressing issues that I naturally would agree with. Now, I knew that I thought Libertarians were kind of wacko, but what they were showing me did not strike me as wacko. There wasn't anything about taxes, I don't think. It was all about personal liberties. Back then, if there had been material about the Federal Reserve, I would have thought that was nuts. Today, I no longer find that to be nuts. So in one way at least I have come around to share one position with Ron Paul.

I guess they do this on purpose: advertise the issues that are more acceptable, that might appeal to some of us on the left, and not say anything about those issues that so many of us would find repellant. Then maybe they can pick up some not-well-informed votes that way. It isn't always easy to know, or be aware of, what you don't know. We often learn the hard way about the fine print.

I don't have any suggestions to make as to how to rectify or address this. The media aren't any help that way, I mean, by exploring his less up-front positions, but they do help, in terms of the final result, by ignoring him and shutting him out. On the other hand, that also builds up his mystique. And in the meantime, more and more young people and customers dissatisfied with the rest of the pack continue to be attracted to him for his views on the Federal Reserve, primarily.

Ignorance is bliss?

[coalition_unwilling]

64. Good points and observations, except I fear you have overlooked the most

significant point on which Paul breaks with the mainstream of the Repukes: imperialism and militarism. This happens to be a subject where Paul's positions -- if left unexamined critically -- can hold a lot of appeal to the anti-war factions on the left. I know b/c I found myself at one point briefly seduced by the siren-song of Paul's anti-militarism. (Fortunately, my DU brothers and sisters quickly set me straight

However, it made me smile from ear to ear to watch Paul serving Bachmann in last Thursday's debate on the issue of whether Iran should be invaded and whether it was even a threat. Paul fumbled around a bit at first and allowed her to rattle the sabers. But he eventually called her out on how much such a war would cost and his response drew hearty cheers from the audience. Bachmann looked like she wanted to shiv him. It was great!

[emcguffie]

100. Thanks.

I think you are right. I knew there were things I was leaving out.

I had no idea how much I didn't know about him myself. It is very easy to see how he appeals, though, to so many.

It's kind of weird, to me, that so many things that I and folks like me, my family, other lefties, used to take for granted as totally nuts have turned out to be not so nuts at all. Like the Federal Reserve.

Maybe if he does get more attention this time around, his positions on other issues will come front and center. I hope so. But in the meantime, I hope he keeps on shivving the others!

[SidDithers]

47. Has Ron Paul come out in support of OWS?...

Has he publicly endorsed the protests?

Sid

[Fire Walk With Me]

57. No, not that I'm aware of. His supporters are simply showing up thereabout.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Short summary, 20 % normal, 80% crazee

He is all for ending the wars, and a highly isolationist policy... (the reasonable side in him)

From there it gets really through the looking class

Let's end the fed... (as much as the fed should be audited.. which is his present compromise position, Jackson comes to mind and THAT depression)

Women's rights, what women's rights? He makes pro-lifers look reasonable at times.

Social Security and Medicare are un-American and should be done away with.

All the social safety net is un-American, oh and yes... piece D'resistance... the market knows best, get rid of all regulatory agencies.

Oh and compared to his son, Ron is a reasonable chap.

[rsmith6621]

55. Yes Ron Paul Is Dangerous...

...It is sad that many in the Occupy thinks this guy has the solution...he is a freak.

[Zorra]

60. Nobody in Occupy thinks Ron Paul has the solution. Please do not spread this meme.

Ron Paul supporters are RW corporatist free marketeteers that are feeding off of the good energy of Occupy.

They are not Occupy. IMO, they are a Jehovah's Witness like cult of personality that really has nothing in common with us.

Like Fire Walk With Me said in his OP, we don't need egocentric father figures to tell us what to do.

Just because they invade us doesn't mean we want them there.

[freshwest]

94. Very good, thanks for the information.

[AnnieBW]

56. Paul does appear to be reasonable

right before he goes off into batshit-crazy land.

[alfredo]

59. Objectivism

[KG]

65. piss on Ron Paul

[Liberal Minded]

67. An honest response

I want to quote Ron Paul for all the people who are screaming bloody murder for him being a racist,

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

Good ahead and google that quote if you don't believe it's by Ron Paul. I believe most of you are getting confused by thinking Ron Paul wants to take the rights of minority's but he stated,

"You know, segregation was created by government laws. Slavery was created by government laws. Segregation in the military was created by government laws. So what we want to do as libertarians, is to repeal all those laws and honor and respect people … But for you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don’t understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that, and if they did, they would be an idiot and they would be out of business. So I think you’re just getting overboard in order to try to turn it around and try to accuse somebody of being a racist."

Watch the interview yourself and listen to the man explain his position on the Civil Rights act of 1964 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YM0iCQwgRmw#!

Again here is Ron Paul defending the OWS movement - http://amherst.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-defends-occupy-wall-street#video-8518569

I'm not trying to say Ron Paul is perfect by any standard. But the " Ron Paul is *blanking* racist bigot "bastard", is misguiding and simply not true. If you don't understand what he's saying, find out for yourself instead of referencing some "opinion" article. He's the only one who will end America's military empire, let the big banks fail, and end RACIST drug wars on American citizens. I voted for Obama because I thought he would end the patriot act, be tough on big business " not bail them out and then pretend to put the foot on the throat" , and cut down on the reckless spending that Bush started *cough cough military industrial complex*. Instead we were all betrayed and the whole "vote for the less evil" attitude needs to end. I'm sorry if I have offended some people on this site, I use to be a big fan. I still see allot of great discussions on here... but this one is just taste less. Even if you don't like him, dont be arrogant otherwise your no better than the scummy neo-cons.

[abelenkpe]

76. Yeah that's why his newsletter was filled with bigoted rants

against african americans and he's loved by stormfront because he's not a bigot.Just a harmless misunderstood libertarian who wants corporations free to pollute the environment, pay less than minimum wage and thinks there is never any reason for a woman to have an abortion.

[musette_sf]

81. Not only is he racist to the core

but he is sexist also.

He's trying to cover his tracks, mislead, and misrepresent himself.

Tired of the Paulites trying to co-opt OWS and the progressive movement.

R Paul is regressive and he stands for, with and by the 1%.

[Ohio Joe]

89. Ron Paul is a racist asshole

Here, The Young Turks cover is very nicely:

And just for your reading enjoyment, some Ron Paul quotes that damn his racist ass:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/

Fuck that POS Ron Paul and eveyone that covers his racist ass. Fuck em.

[SidDithers]

90. This post was alerted as a Community Standards violation...

the alerter thought Ron Paul spam was against didn't fit in with DU's community standards.

Seemed the jury disagreed, voting 2-4 to leave the post.

Here are jurors comments:


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster's argument for Ron Paul being a racist is a false one since,wanting to overturn Civil Rights laws are racist in practice even if the the practice isn't motivated by race. The reason I think we should leave i though is because, I think it is important to discuss these issue.. If he has violated the TOS, then that is something for Skinner and the other admins to deal with.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: First of all, I am sick and tired of hearing that Ron Paul is a racist. Maybe people are confusing Ron with Rand, his son. If the poster had said he was voting for Ron Paul, or urging us to vote for Ron Paul, then I would be "hiding" the post. But to simply offer up a defense of this fellow, Ron Paul, who like me, is against foreign war entanglements, and who has helped Kucinich, one of my all time favorite Democrats out, while the two of them serve in Congress, seems fine with me.

Perhaps the best way I can say this is this one: the board at DU should be used to promote truth. Only by promoting and exposing truth can people on DU have the ability to argue persuasively with relatives, friends and neighbors. If we let lies stand, then we re DISABLING the ability of our fellow DU-ers to be able to argue and persuade for decent candidates.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Wow. The whole OP is about Ron Paul, and this person's support of Ron Paul does not read as spam.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Defense of Ron Paul doesn't meet my version of Community Standards at DU.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Although this is a Democratic site, I could have tolerated a posting along the lines of
"I believe that Ron Paul is being unfairly judged as racist on the basis of these quotes:
quote A quote B quote C
I urge you to use first-hand information to make up your mind about him. <Poster's personal beliefs about RP here, though some jurors might disagree.>"

When the poster added these sentences, however, the tone descended to insults:
"If you don't understand what he's saying, find out for yourself instead of referencing some "opinion" article... Even if you don't like him, dont be arrogant otherwise your no better than the scummy neo-cons."
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given


Poor Juror #2, who is "sick and tired of hearing that Ron Paul is a racist."

Sid

[Charlemagne]

78. Foreign Policy

I think this is the point they grab on to. Economically, he would unleash hell on earth. But a lot of liberals like his 'no more foreign wars of choice' platform. Not saying I like the guy or like isolationism. Thats just teh general feeling I get from said folks.

[freshwest]

79. They are the Prison Planet contingent, trying to co-opt OWS.

Alex Jones put out a call for them to go to keep the young people of OWS from 'falling prey to liberals and socialists and turning against capitalism.'

When you scrape the rhetoric off what they're asking for it's no different than the Koch brothers. They regard unregulated, free market capitalism as next to godliness. Jones called out the troops for Frank Luntz, and the GOP worried Americans might lose their only true religion, capitalism.

When you strip away their talk against banksters, their true gods remain gold, guns and Reagan. Their libertarian cult hero is the shiny face for Ayn Rand and the end result of Ron Paul's policies coming into effect is fascism.

They seek to skim off those who don't know them. They started up in the Bush era, but he's the only Republican they don't like. They are a cult who were co-opted a long time ago, by following a man who votes GOP but tries to act like he's not one. Economically, there is no daylight between Boehner, Ryan, etc. and Paul.

Ron Paul = Reagan 2. Sadly, a generation of people have grown up in the Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly media environment and think that Reagan was a good guy, never realizing he began what the young people are fighting against now.

OWS needs to steer clear of the Ron Paulies. They don't respect the homeless, disabled or poor, just think along the lines of Ron Paul and 'let god sort it out.' In other words, they are rebranded GOP, the conspiracy cave of the Teaparty.

I'm not saying to be unkind to them as I've known a lot of them and they want things to change, just haven't thought it through. They are unwittingly in bed with some of the worst ideologues.

[freshwest]

85. Fire Walk With Me, I messaged you an article to share with him.

[Zorra]

80. Ron Paul on Separation of Church and State

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[143]

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


Total bovine excrement.

Ron Paul is scary.

[rainy]

83. Why I don’t get libertarianism:

Why I don’t get libertarianism: First, I would recommend the movie “There will be Blood,” based on the book “Oil” by Upton Sinclair. In it Daniel Dey Lewis’s character is a human metaphor for capitalism. He destroys everything in his path eventually destroying himself as capitalism eventually eats itself as we are seeing now.

The Pauls think its ok for a business to say who they will let in their doors based on bigotry because they are the property owners, even though it is the public that paid for the roads that lead to their door, pays for their police protection and pays for their fire protection.

The Pauls believe that a business such as Walmart should be able to pay any crap wage even though the worker is not paid enough to support him or herself to the point that the tax payer has to pay for food stamps the worker needs to survive, while the CEO makes that workers yearly wage in one hour.

The Pauls believe that a company should be able to use up all of the natural resources, pollute the earth and not pay for it. They believe Coke company should be able to go to any country, steal their water to bottle their coke, exploit workers for horrendous wages, pollute their water, make them deathly sick and not pay a dime for all the destruction they cause.

Capitalism is not the answer, it can’t float all boats especially global capitalism and it is not good for a majority of people. The earth can’t sustain our rate of growth. Capitalism wastes too much of our natural resources. Waste is not a good way to run an economy.

Someone has to pick the fruit, harvest the food, work at 7-11 or Walmart and yet libertarians are ok with those workers not getting enough to pay for food and healthcare. What is the point of living if the wage doesn’t allow peace and happiness? Why are we here…to slave for Walmart while they decide the value of our wage, while they lobby our government to make rules that favor them?

The public pays for most of the innovative research going on in the world through subsidies yet after the great things are invented, especially pharmaceuticals, using public subsidies the private companies get to keep all the profit.

Because capitalists rule, we are actually seeing our innovation drop in the US. We are no longer competitive because it has been the government subsidizing all the innovative research and the right and libertarians are starving the government to the point of no funding for that marvelous research. Other countries are soaring ahead of us. They are inventing renewable green energy technology while we are still trying to build an oil pipeline. We are old dinosaurs hanging on to old ways and afraid to fund the future. Our schools, roads etc are crumbling.

Private property seems to be at the root of libertarianism. Why should the “government” be allowed to divvy out land? Who are the real owners of the earth? If a government ‘s sole purpose is to divvy out land and supply protection for only the owners who would allow that government to be? The earth belongs to everyone.

Capitalism and socialism are not the answers. A better world is possible. We are moving out of the industrial age based on cheap oil, which came with murderous wars and destruction. We are moving into an information age. We are truly becoming more aware, more conscientious beings.

A TRUE COST economy is the way to go where companies are not allowed to dump toxins into our once clean air, land and water. Those companies make us sick with cancer and other illnesses but pay nothing to fix the problem. They make huge profits off of using up all the people’s resources and leave toxins behind that are killing us.

If they had to pay for the toxic waste they couldn’t afford to exist and so be it.

In a true cost economy we would not have a Federal Bank that creates money out of thin air. We wouldn’t have banks that created credit default swaps allowing one end of their business to bet that the other end will fail and rake in dollars as our pensions shrink.

A true cost economy would promote localism allowing us to stop using deadly pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

Capitalism destroys everything in sight. Our fish are not healthy to eat. 60% of asthma is caused by air pollution and toxins seep into our drinking water supplies. Everything is polluted. The earth is crashing and burning.

Free market capitalism is corrupt and unregulated and destroying the world.

[freshwest]

97. I think you 'get' libertarianism very well. I hope you make an OP of that post.

[rainy]

98. I did about three days ago. Thanks:). Nt

[MineralMan]

84. Oh, I'm pretty sure you know the answer to your own question.

Yes, I am.