About this whole Ron Paul love/respect on DU, would you love respect David Duke if he were anti-war?

Think about it:

A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings. Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."
-snip-

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

Go right ahead respect, praise him just as I assume some of the DUers who like him might respect and praise David Duke.

Let's not forget his attitude towards choice and other progressive issues.

Just because someone is anti-war does not mean they are deserving of any kind of love on DU.

because my take on him is that he's anti-war for strange technical/historical reasons--NOT because war is a sad waste of lives and a last resort. He wants to disengage from the world, and that is exactly what we DON'T need right now--we're actually more isolationist now, not in a military sense, but in the sense that we've alienated many other countries with whom we used to share goodwill and a common purpose.

other than that -- there is NO GOOD in the republick party or in the conservative movement -- period.

and who don't understand his platform. There's always an idiot or two who will fall for a catch-phrase. There's no IQ test for membership here.

Don't judge the entire population of this forum by a few dullards--that suggests poor reasoning on YOUR part.

I don't see a load of love and respect for the guy from people who know what they're talking about.

Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't make it a good clock.

Julie

1) Ron Paul is a racist scumbag
2) Ron Paul is better than any of the other Republican candidates

Though if you read the comments on the link you posted, it seems that the comments on Washington blacks were written by a staffer and he later apologised for them (and I don't buy the "if you criticise Israel or AIPAC, you're an anti-semite" line).

To me, there are more compelling reasons to be worried about the (admittedly slim) prospect of a Paul presidency. I live in a state (South Carolina) whose governor shares Dr. Paul's wacky libertarianism, and I've seen the damage it can do.

If she was partly responsible for the deaths of a million Iraquis. It's only one vote out of a hundred. There were 23 senators who voted against the IWR. It's only one vote in favor of the IWR. What's the big deal?

I guess from a mathematical perspective 1/100 * 1,000,000 dead = 10,000. That portion may be assigned to each vote for the IWR. That to me looks like a big deal, but it's easy to rationalize it away.

...aren't taking their own actions against the war and asking themselves what they could be doing about it, and instead rely on other people like this disturbed character Ron Paul to do it for them.

What does this guy do for them anyways? Get publicity for the cause? Reach right-wingers with an anti-war message? If people did this themselves they could forget Ron Paul. This is a guy who is against the war simply because he doesn't want to pay money for it, that's it.

I remember when the war started, all these people were talking about how afraid they were to admit they were against it around all their right-wing co-workers and what not. Well, if that's the case for anyone out there then they need to start looking for a way where they can speak their mind themselves and stop leaning on an insane ideologue who opposes them and the rest of us in a hundred other ways.

:thumbsup:

You could put Nader's name in there and the argument would be the same; people wonder why the Democrats do not support their pet issue and so they try to vote for this perennial loser like it's going to do anything. They need to get off their asses and tell people why they should be against NAFTA or whatever thing they're against if that's what they want; don't use violence against them in the form of Republican government to try to change peoples' minds.

:kick:

:shrug:

It dumbs down the debate and lessens the meaning of the term. AND WE don't need America dumbed down more. If you disagree on something, debate the policy. But I read Ron has apologized and said it wasn't him. Got proof otherwise? Oh and don't forget our very own Robert Byrd who was a real racist.

Here is how I see Ron paul: On foreign policy he is perfect. On social issues he is a extreme right-wing radical.

Would I vote for him over Hillary? Yes because I could care less about social issues if we are killing hundreds of thousands with our army in a unjust war. I have no doubt she would attack Iran too. Stopping WW3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>social issues.

Any of the other our candidates I would for sure vote for over Ron obviously.

:yoiks:

Here is the problem: What if he actually isn't a racist and didn't write that? You don't care right?

But please, let the dumbing down continue.

In the future, debates will probably be like this: Republicans will say commie and Democrats will say racist. Whoever can say their word the most wins!

He is a racist because there's documentation of it. A Houston Chronicle article attesting to his newsletter (which, even if he didn't write it, went out under his name and, presumably, his blessing) and his ACTUAL GODDAMN STATEMENT THAT BLACKS IN D.C. ARE MOSTLY CRIMINAL.

Sorry for yelling.

I eagerly await any apology or refutation of these views by Dr. Paul you can provide. You know...a complete and sincere recantation of previous racist views like the kind Senator Byrd (whom you were so quick to cite...hmmmm) has offered for over 40 years.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Draw your own conclusions. I really don't care.

"Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken 'moral' responsibility for them."

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground"

Like all unrepentant racists.

but don't seem to mind at all the offensive, racist comments that they make?!

Mr. X: 95% of black men are criminals.
DUer: <crickets>
Mr. Y: That's a racist thing to say.
DUer: How DARE your call Mr. X a RACIST!!!??!??!??!!

Lord save us from some of the folk supposedly on our own side!

I'm very careful about labeling things or people as racist. But in this case, Ron Paul's comments fit the bill.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and keep the comments about how you'd vote for a repuke over Clinton, to a minimum. It ain't the thing in these parts. And just love your compassion for the millions of people here who would suffer and the thousands who would die under a Paul regime. Try balancing compassion for everyone.

As for your conviction that Hillary would bomb Iran; guess what? you don't have a functional crystal ball. And frankly, I really doubt that Wes Clark, McGovern, Bobby Kennedy and others adamently opposed to such action, would endorse her if they thought that.

I'm not for Clinton, but I'll surely take the opinions of the aforemnentioned people, over YOURS.

And as I recall is a Ron Paul supporter.
I haven't seen any posts here supporting the disgusting POS (Duke) and I hope I never will. So maybe your question is already answered.

since my friend is a libertarian and supports Ron Paul he is a Nazi?

Your friend supports a racist and an anti-Semite. Draw your own conclusions.

Seriously, this should be good. Is ALL criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to point out the obvious fact that Israeli-aligned blocs exert an undue influence over the foreign policy of the United States?

Yeah, there's a strong argument to be made that Ron Paul is (or was) racist against African-Americans, but where do you get off calling the man an anti-Semite?

n/t

I got an awful feeling too - so I googled and soon found, yes, David Duke IS against the war! Turns out he was anti-War before anti-War was cool (the Jooooos were tricking us into it, don't you know.) From March 5th, 2003:
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=4

In recent days, Mr. Duke has been complaining about Sandy Berger working for Hillary. He thinks Sandy's a "neocon":
http://www.davidduke.com/

And just below that, he tells us about "The Lies of Globalism." Thusly:

:scared: I just hope he doesn't start running for President. It's bad enough to face the Ron Paul leftists, I don't want to see the "DU"ke Brigade!

i don't love ron paul, he's a bit nutty...but i love the small aspect of anybody's personality who's willing to call it like it is and speak out about it.

i'll support the anti-war part of ron paul and everybody who wants to end the war should. just because you don't agree with somebody 98% of the time doesn't mean you can't join and work with them the other 2%

:kick:

and on every single other issue i'll tell him to go to hell

if i only allowed myself to work on any given thing with people who were as self-righteous and ideologically pure as me (sarcasm of course, but you get the point), well, i'd only be working by myself

So if NAMBLA supports Obama does that mean you are ready to work with NAMBLA too?

If not, your comparison is a little, shall we say, ridiculous?

If anything, I would think NAMBLA would support the party that protects and coddles child molestors - today's GOP.

my comparison is good. He was implying that if someone supports a certain political campaign then obviously the candidate agrees with the positions of the supporter. That is pretty ridiculous.

The OP is not saying that DUers should not support the anti-war effort the OP is just saying we should not support a candidate just because he or she is anti-war while ignoring all of that other candidate's positions which we fill find as offensive.

I'm sure there are many offensive people (like NAMBLA) who support candidates we support, however we don't need to work with or reach out to those people.

What good does that do? Yes, he's anti-war. About 80% of the country are anti-war. But there are candidates who I'm sure you'd agree with 98% of the time and are anti-war. What about Kucinich? He's not my choice but he's a hell of a lot better than Paul...

i support ron paul on one issue and one issue alone: ending this war. that doesn't mean i'd vote for him, i never ever would do that.

but if i was in congress and ron paul came to me and said, "i want your help to end this war." i would do it in a heartbeat.

fuck, if DAVID DUKE came to me and said, "i want your help to end this war," i would do it in a heartbeat.

on this one, single issue (and no others), i would work with anybody who shared that same goal, and that is, END THIS WAR.

i don't understand the ron paul "fuzzies" either, but i don't completely blame people...there are not many politicians or people in the public eye speaking the truth about the war and our problems with the Middle East in general (i.e. blowback). and on this ron paul is 100% correct. i haven't seen anything else that i agree with him on.

i am tired of people on here advocating a litmus test for anybody and everybody. just because somebody's an idiot every other time doesn't mean they can't be right on one issue.

a true dyed-in-the-wool libertarian would not have any problem with abortion, as it's ultimately an individual rights issue, yet he uses it to pander to the hardcore anti-abortion fringe (clinic protesters, etc.). Why has no one in the MSM questioned him on this?

Those folks are all too willing to tolerate a racist, as long as he's anti-Bush.

Very sad.

People change, and they can change a lot in fifteen years. I'm not excusing Ron Paul's obvious racism in the past, but it's important to consider whether he still holds these abhorrent views. If he does, fuck him. BUT...

Robert Byrd doesn't. And I believe that Ron Paul doesn't.

"...by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Well, he's half-right. The "most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort" is AIPAC, which is not too far removed from being an arm of the Israeli government.

and doesn't try to wiggle out of them. His comments were more than half a century ago and he has spent the last several decades trying to make up for them.

Big difference.

But it is interesting how often Robert Byrd is brought up as an excuse to defend people who have exhibited signs of racism. Usually it's folks on the other side who use this tactic, but I guess it's not limited to them.

The primary difference between being Robert Byrd and someone else who is a racist is that Byrd *changed* publicly acknowledging his past wrong and trying later to do what was right in opposition to his past actions.

The idea of forgiving someone who doesn't think they've done or believed anything wrong really mocks the whole reason for forgiveness, in fact it's not forgiveness --it's sanctioning.