I don't get the Ron Paul hatred...

He represents anti-war sentiment among REPUBLICANS. How is that bad?

Last time I checked, he wasn't running for the Democratic nomination. And he has almost zero chance of making it past the Republican Political Machine and getting their nod.

What are the Ron Paul haters afraid of? :shrug:

What we're afraid of is that this single-issue focus is causing people to forget the fact that he's a fucking whackjob. He isn't a good person, his position on the war notwithstanding. He doesn't represent "anti-war sentiment" among Republicans. He represents crazy isolationist sentiment among Republicans.

among your choices?

If anything, he would tend to steer votes toward the Democratic Party if we ever put up an anti-war candidate.

Batshit crazy is batshit crazy. I'm sure I probably agree with Lyndon LaRouche on something but he's still a nutjob, too.

I don't expect to see Ben Stein on my ballot either, but he's still a prick, and I still complain about him.

(Crap, knock on wood I hope I didn't just jinx that.)

:shrug:

that no one on DU thinks that Rudy or Mitt is really not bad; that 'at least he's honest and speaks his mind'; that one could consider actually voting for one of them against Hillary Clinton or another possible Dem nominee. No one on DU links approvingly to websites run by people who support Rudy or Mitt. So no one feels that they have to defend their opposition to Rudy or Mitt against other DU members.

Yet Another Ron Paul thread.

support him. Evidently, millions do. And if you think he only represents anti-war sentiment among repukes, I suggest that you're wrong. He also represents xenophobic, no government is good government, racist ideologies among repukes, indies, and yes even some dems.

:shrug:

Are Rudy or Mitt supported by Stormfront? No. Do either of them propose dismantling OSHA or withdrawing from the UN? Not as far as I know. Have they advocated doing away with all environmental protections? Not that I know. Mitt and Rudy are both highly revolting in their own right; both support the war, and the mentality of their supporters makes be very uncomfortable too.
So?

Ron Paul's votes were party-line votes?

Isn't Rudy Giuliani's 2nd hand man Bernard Kerik is being Indicted for Fraud? This was Bush's first pick to be head of Homeland security. The wheels on the bus go round and round... round and round.

Millions still support George Bush. Speaking of ignorant... just saying.

his other political positions are at the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul




Pro-life legislation

Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling a late abortion performed during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”<120> During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.<121>

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".<122>

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.<123> In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.<95> In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.<124>

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.<125> He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”<126>

Was that ever a choice for ME?

for him to begin with and think anyone who votes for him solely for his anti-war stance, which I do agree with, is whacked.

They sound too horrific to be true. I've often wondered if stories like the one above were exaggerated or even manufactured to rile the emotions.

:)

legislation and so on--it isn't a horror movie. Anti-choice legislation is something he's isn't afraid to champion:

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Not here on DU so much, but at colleges and around town.

Answer: Ron Paul.

"In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments."

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

I don't hate him, mind you. I merely dismiss him, as his campaign won't survive much past 2/5, and because of views like the above-captioned note.

bat shit crazy Republican.

Horrors.

... the most pernicious strain of deludiniod there is.

Along with his anti-war stance comes business policies that make Reagan and Bush sound like John Kenneth Galbraith.

No thanks.

Why are you so intent on supporting a Republican candidate, anyway? There are plenty of anti-war Democrats, try supporting them instead of the Batfuck Crazy One.

for the REPUBLICAN nomination, and yet I find at least two or three threads every day cutting him down on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

There's not anywhere close to that number of anti-Rudy or anti-Mitt threads.

How many anti-Hillary threads are there every day? Anti-Edwards? Anti-anyone on the Democratic ticket? Why in hell are you so focused on Ron Paul?

Every morning for the past month or so I open up DU, I find several anti-Ron Paul threads, almost no anti-Rudy or anti-Mitt threads, and it just strikes me as curious.

If there were a lot of "ah, Mitt aint so bad" posts here like there are for Ron Paul, you'd see a lot more anti-Romney posts.

It's not complicated.

He would love to abolish public education, abortion, social security, medicare, medicaid, the list goes on.

I have a lot of political hate for his positions. And were he to have a chance in hell of winning the White House, I would most certainly fear his views. He is NO good for America.

Other than the War, He is a far right loon. This guy wants the private sector to run everything.

He's a batshit crazy racist Republican. 'Nuff said.

Some quotations from his own website:

'A Republic, If You Can Keep It Dr. Ron PaulU.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representativesdelivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.


....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care; and despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage'. He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.

He's a scary person, all right.

I am glad he has no chance of winning the nomination; but I think that what is scary to some of us is not just him as an individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him.

Opposition is not hatred, yet anyone who opposes anyone else is now labeled a "hater."

All opposition is now a "smear" or "swiftboating."

Does no one but me find this sort of propaganda disgraceful?

If one wants to make a point, hopefully the point is strong enough to stand on its own without propaganda.

People who support him & call themselves progressive are fools.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2264406

Read & learn

And if some Chinese corporation wanted to poison your children, he would do nothing to stop them.

Ron Paul is no libertarian.

You go on believing Paul is an honest guy. Thats what they want you to think.

As long as you refuse this you will never get your wish.

And you've provided .... what? Only snarky comments?

Who's responding like a dimwitted RWer?

We have a pro-choice peace candidate who is supportive of a woman's right to choose, universal health care, gay marriage and and the unions.

Oh but we can't consider someone who may have seen an unidentified object in the sky. :sarcasm:

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

And not in a good way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3688155

Iraq. His fanatics drive me nuts because they obviously don't know he wants to get rid of programs like Medicare and Social Security. I don't hate Ron Paul, but his supporters are not the sharpest tacks.

It shouldn't.

Other then that, he's certifiable.

I also agree with his non-interventionist foreign policy and his anti-corporatist stand.

We don't like the idiocy of ignoring his batshit insane ideas in favor of glorifying him for one of his few good ones.

:eyes:

he was the only one to vote against it? Dr. Paul encourages civil disobedience he wasn't against helping Rosa Parks. You might not like reading this. But at least you might understand the reason.

Read about Rep David Crockett. "Not yours to give"

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'


"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.


" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'


"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.


" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'


"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'


" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'


You can read the whole speech if you click on the link below.



http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/crockett/crocket2.htm

Ron Paul had no problem with giving a congressional award to some art students from his district.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/11/ron-paul-rosa-parks/

I know, I know.. giving a medal to Rosa Parks would violate the U.S. Constitution, but I know there's something in that piece of paper about giving awards to art students. Maybe hidden in Article 2, or the 7th Amendment somewhere... or the 17th.

See, when a smart man like Ron Paul isn't consistent with his avowed principles, one begins to wonder what his real principles are. What his real goals are. Even who is friends happen to be... hmm...

What do YOU think?

Other than trying to understand the reason he was the only one to vote against the Rosa Parks medal. I provided the reason for those who would like to read.:hi:


Please tell me what the award cost and provide a link that shows Ron Paul appropriated this money to the art students? By the way did you read "Not yours to give"? Google if you wish.


http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2000/pr042500.htm


"The art contest is an annual event held in the district in which students from high schools in all 22 counties submit original artwork that will be judged by a panel of celebrity and professional art experts. The winning student's work will be displayed at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. This year's judges will be Hays County Judge Jim Powers, as well as Southwest Texas State University art professors Brian Row and Carole Greer."

who convinces people that government regulation and public education are bad things. I'm not so much afraid of him though, with any luck he'll split the repubs in the primary.

not a lying faux conservative who just wants to steal taxpayer money like Bush or Reagan, so I guess if you're one too, he would appeal to you. I'm not, so he doesn't appeal to me at all.

are too cowardly and/or stupid to oppose the war.

:hi:

an issue that is so important is just so threatening to those who support candidates who have taken compromised positions on the war.

some "DUers" seem to attack any candidate that is anti-war.

No, really, that's all I said and *poof* away goes the post.

Kucinich is anti-war, but they can say "Awww, I love him, but he's way to liberal to be elected. If only the world were good enough." This is a non-threatening situation.

Paul comes out and fucks with that whole defence mechanism by being anti-war and conservative (maybe even reactionary) and the excuse to dismiss Kucinich is gone. Now we know that even a total RW-nut can be anti-war too. So why won't the "center" come around and promote peace too?

I, too, am bewildered by the anti-Paul threads. Not only is he not ours to vote for, but he is a fantastic fly in the ointment on the Republican side.

Look, if he splits the repuke vote and even sends some fence-sitters our way, great.

But throughout this thread you're politicizing the man based on his views when it should be the other way around. Look at his views to determine his politics. Start with his convictions -- in this case, he's a racist, a bigot, a classist, and kind of a kook.

Now am I going to argue with someone like that splitting the republican vote? Hell no.

But just watch to see how many "paul flies" this thread attracts, with all their disinformation and veiled support of the man. it's not blind hatred with no basis, it's calculated skepticism and measured disapproval. subtle differences.

He represents anti-war sentiment among REPUBLICANS. How is that bad?

The answer: because legitimizing David Duke means legitimizing not only his view on the war, but his other views as well. ANd that's the same reason that legitimizing Ron Paul is bad.

without understanding his entire record and point of view. On the war, yes--he is correct. On most everything else he is pretty bad.

funding schools, etc etc. He is also anti-choice.

That frightens many.

It's not exactly friendly territory for the GOP.

Ya see, what happens is this: the whole SPECTRUM shifts over towards center. Getting out of Iraq, working on solving environmental crises and maybe some other things with which we share common ground becomes more possible.

Which then frees up OUR time and energy. We left-lib-progressives then get to focus on other issues.... including those we disagree with Ron Paul on... and we get to work on pushing things further along than we could otherwise (such as, finding more far-reaching solutions to global climate catastrophe,etc.)

He's against the war for xenophobic/isolationist reasons rather than humanitarian or law-based reasons. Certainly, it's good that he's against the war, but that doesn't mean that liberals should be making common cause with him. I could understand trying to find common ground with some other anti-war Republicans like Chafee or even perhaps Hagel, but most of Paul's views are to the RIGHT of most Republicans on economic and some social issues.

Why should I care, when he won't win and I'm not even American? The answer is: because there is a BIG danger if liberals ever start to accept or make common cause with far-RW 'populist' extremists, just because they're against the war or against Bush. And this is as applicable to the UK and Europe as to America. The BNP (the virtually neo-Nazi British Nationalist Party) are against the war. So is far-right leader LePen in France. (So, I understand is David Duke.) I think it is very important that liberals/progressives make sure that we stay united in steering WELL clear of such individuals and groups, even when they oppose the war. Some 'enemies of my enemy' must still be firmly treated as my enemies, rather than my friends.

this would be it. brava, nails my sentiments exactly.

his reasons for being anti-war are not the right reasons, and that may sound like fly-fucking the issues, but I do not align myself against the IW because I'm against all foreign engagements everywhere, regardless of the need, I align myself against the war because, like a true progressive, I am anti-war in principle. I don't think it's right to bomb people, invade sovereign nations, power-grab. etc.

To your post I add that even if I believed paul were anti-war in principle, there's the small issue of him being a bigot and a class-warrior and likely a racist that stick in my craw.

with friends like these and so forth...

He wants to defund almost the entire govt. He says income taxes are illegal. He'll try to cut all govt programs, including education. He's a real libertarian.

and being allowed to do it.

:banghead:

I am just baffled that so much time is taken trashing a fringe REPUBLICAN candidate on DU and not, oh say, trashing Rudy, someone I see as a REAL threat.

As in the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, "The only people we hate more than the Romans are the <expletive> Judean People's Front!". Unrepentant expletives like Tancredo don't make DU's sonar (not that his presidential 'aspirations' are any less realistic than Paul's), partially because we wouldn't want to jinx the most repulsive general election losing republican in show, but also because his views are so alien as to not be a threat to our own belief systems, whereas Paul or Rudeiani might occasionally say or do something familiar enough to make us wonder how they became repubs (Giuliani not so much, although he almost ran to the left of Dinkins in the first campaign), so the (run-on sentence) hierarchy of disgust from DU's POV is something like DINOs > Greens/Nader/Codepink > RINOs > Uber-repubs, with Paul/Mitt/Rudy warranting less discussion than Pelosi's or Sheehan's foibles but more than truly reactionary repubs like HuckaB/Tom T.

in that leadership position, you nor I nor anyone else for that matter has a say so in what they want to be the eventual outcome, they are more than aware of the liabilities Rudy represents to the core of their supporters and its been more than obvious for quite some time that the core supporters they once embraced and coddled are no longer necessary.

What I don't like is threads like this acting as if Ron Paul is the saving grace for the repubs and in that respect your ops acts as if he is for us as well, simply because he opposes the war, big deal? Who doesn't?

Why you would even put up such an op on Du is beyond me to be honest but hey, its a free country and I have no desire to deny you those rights so carry on, I was just using the same freedom to voice my opinion on your op, I just wonder at your motive, this board obviously being a Democratic board or so one would think after reading the title of the board.

What planet do you...nevermind...

many/most people CAN agree with, BUT it's the overall package that has to be looked at..

I always get a chuckle out of libertarian politicians.. They claim to want government OUT of people's lives, yet THEY see being on the government payroll , perfectly acceptable to THEM.. and they are then in a position to dictate to the libertarian people who sent them there :)

Libertarian philosophy is very toddler-esque.. mine..mine... mine.. no..no..no

People in this thread and elsewhere have already brought up his pro-life views - I'll just call that Strike One.

Strike Two is his rather insane economic views. Classic Libertarianism - abolish social programs. No more Social Security, no more public schools, no more welfare, no more Medicare, no more Medicaid. Sell the national parks, get rid of the FDA, USDA, everything regulatory - let the invisible hand of the free market handle it. All the .gov does is provide military, courts and police. As far as your welfare goes, you sink or swim. Can't swim for whatever reason? Disabled? Can't get a good education (because you can't afford private schools, can't send your kids to private schools?) Too bad. Maybe a private charity will help you out... Yeah, right. Now you understand why I'm an ex-Libertarian (and a Kucinich fan.)

I haven't heard enough about the accusations of racism and bigotry. I'm not sure that Ron Paul himself is heavily bigoted. If he is, that's definitely Strike Three. What I do know is that if you go to Stormfront and all the other white supremacist sites, they all love him. All the Klansmen, Neo-Nazis and other hate-filled freaks think he's great. That gives me pause.

as much as he scares corporate Republicans. He is anti-war, against corporate welfare, for re-establishing the gold standard (abolishing the FED), and restoring constitutional rights. He's an anti-imperialist not too unlike Kucinich. Both are marginalized by their own parties. One is conservative and one is liberal, both are libertarian. It is the libertarian quality that scare authoritarians the most, because that's an essential foundation of the military industrial complex. The left is not so much threatened by him, at least not the part who have taken the effort to read his positions. It's the corporate wing of both parties that are terrified of him.

Why don't we spend more time supporting her rather than Republican Ron Paul?
:eyes:

Just what we need: Another batshit crazy, prolife, prolie, ilibertarian.

I've notice that too!

He's anti-choice, anti-education and on top of that, he's racist. His anti-war position is great, but other than that he's far too dangerous to be President.

What do I have against Ron Paul? Well, racist 'tards sure love the little clown, for starters.





http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/rpb2/


Nazis view Ron Paul as nazi-friendly. That tells me everything I need to know about him.

He (Paul) doesn't like the war. However, his intention to weaken the federal government is not only unconstitutional, but seems to be a mask hiding a really dark agenda. The Neo-Nazis seem to grasp that. Neo-Nazi Don Black made a 500 dollar donation to Paul's campaign that, to my knowledge, hasn't been returned yet.

http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2007/10/30/ron-paul-campaign-responds-about-neo-nazi-don-black-donation/

There's also the little matter of him being the only one to vote against honoring Rosa Parks. He can claim that he just thinks it is unconstitutional for Congress to give people awards, but he hasn't been consistent on that, I'm afraid.

There's a blog that's been taking shots at Ron Paul, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek kind of way:

http://racistsforronpaul.blogspot.com

Bottom line, Ron Paul's most sophisticated racist supporters know that Ron Paul's version of federalism would allow the return of things like Jim Crow laws, and that's fine by them.

knows he's a racist?

Ron Paul? I wouldn't know -- doesn't matter much to me either way, for two reasons:

1. I'm not the biggest fan of Kucinich anyway, and,
2. Ron Paul might not be racist, but he's got some racist friends, and he doesn't mind taking money and other forms of support from them.

... although, personally, I'm beginning to think Ron Paul shares some of the more, shall we say, extreme views of his friends. He's been hanging out with Lew Rockwell a looooong time.

isn't one of the racist friends, not that you care as you stated.

At least you made me laugh on the money thing. I'm going to keep my mouth shut, no further explanation needed.

:7

is the "cult like" way they have waves of attacks on online videos without saying anything substantive and simply say, "RON PAUL 08" as a comment. That's pretty annoying.

This msnbc candidate matrix sure helped me realize the only thing I seemed to agree with him on was the Invasion of Iraq... I actually have more in common with Rudy on a couple of issues - but I sure won't vote Mafia '08... I wonder what the full scoop on him and Kerick is...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/ candidate matrix

I guess that's where all the hatred comes from.