Ron Paul Supremacist WTF?

Napolean said:
Is this the same "Anonymous" that posted the youtube video about occupy the Iowa Caucuses that led to the ballots being counted in a "secret location"?
Click to expand...
I'd bet money on it.

turbolapp said:
What's more, we're left wondering why Anon is going to such great lengths to make these vague and dubious connections...I mean, surely it would be more easy to do something like this with Newt or Santorum? Perhaps even Romney. Which leaves me to only conclude they really think he's a threat.
Click to expand...
Not to toot my own horn but It's exactly more of what I said back during the anonymous crap with the Iowa Caucuses... The trouble of being anonymous is that any fucker can pick up your name and say something as you.

This attack is likely straight out of the Romney camp.
 


vinnythejinny said:
just read this here: Ron Paul Exposed As White Supremacist By Anonymous | Addicting Info

Apparently anonymous are claiming that they found some links with white supremacist.

another sad attempt to weaken paul's campaign? Discuss
Click to expand...

Was due diligence ever done on this? Has it been verified that these emails exist or would we still have to take "Anon's" word that this was found?

It wouldn't be surprising of course. Between his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act, the odd newsletters and his relationship with people like Don Black, it wouldn't come as a shocker.

Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters

ronpauldonblackderekblackklan.jpg
 
Ron Paul wants to end the War on Drugs and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison immediately. How many black people do you suppose that would release back to their communities? All of the other candidates (including Obama) want to keep them in prison and continue putting more in prison - so who are the real racists?
 
Ron Paul On The Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Click to expand...
 
SEO Monkey said:
I don't get the cult-like zeal Ron Paul followers have.
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with being a paul follower or not. look at the new german party running for "congress". the pirats. establish media does everything within and outside of their power to associate em with nazi in public opinion. france the same.

new rising powers will always be called extremist and pushed towards the border of whats acceptable. everyone who associates himself with them has to bear the nazi label. easy to keep followings small that way. once that step has been finished. all the "normal" people will have to leave them due to pressure from employers for example. after that, its a self fulfilling prophecy. the organization becomes a crapshot because only ones whore left are social outcasts.
 
on top of that, i respect everyone who has the balls to claim he doesnt like race x. while i personally am not nay kind of supremacist, i dont believe that there are no difference at all between "races". i get no flak at all for claiming that black people are generally stronger built. why is it impossible for em to be a tiny bit less intelligent? i dont think they are, but i think its laughable to forbid science to explore that possibility.

people like dresden keep your personal freedom windows wide open, because they publicize ideas that are way more radical than youd ever have. they get prosecuted while you get to keep your little bias vices. once all of those are imprisoned, the PC gap will tighten even more.
 
JakeStratham said:
Ron Paul On The Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly understand the reasoning he gives for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I wouldn't expect him to come out and say "I wish blacks were still segregated," as this would be political suicide.

Reagan knew this, and this is why his anti Civil Rights Act speech he gave at a rally located in an area where the CR act was very unpopular is geared towards "reducing the federal government's overreach." Of course this idea was popular in an area where the CR Act was UNpopular.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg]Ronald Reagan States' Rights Speech in Philadelphia, MS - YouTube[/ame]

What's more is, Paul's reasoning is very subjective, if not wrong.

the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty

If you are a black person who would like to shop or eat at the restaurant of your choice, your individual liberty has undergone a clear net increase.

On the other hand, if you are a shop or restaurant owner who decides they don't want to serve blacks, the government is now 'forcing' you to treat them like everyone else. So I guess from that perspective, your individual liberties are being trampled upon.

Personally I believe the first scenario is more along the lines of the spirit of the Constitution.

Have racial tensions increased? If they have they've increased only in the sense that people actually pay attention. The Trayvon Martin has generated a lot of controversy whereas 50 years ago it would have been swept under the rug.

But I don't see this sort of thing (below) anymore, so I'm not sure I agree that racial tensions are 'worse.'

mlk2a.jpg
 
"Relationship" with people like don black. Don Black donating to him =! him supporting Don Black. I've read through a large chunk of this. There was no proof. All they had was this nazi asshole saying he met with Ron Paul. So what. It's insanely easy to meet with Ron Paul, he'll meet anyone after a speech. Hence that picture. The worst thing that came out of this is that it turned out a few people somewhat high up in the campaign were racists. (I believe campaign coordinators for Texas & Illinois.)

Not sure what happened to those guys, can only hope that the campaign extricated them.
 
wayn3 said:
that has nothing to do with being a paul follower or not. look at the new german party running for "congress". the pirats. establish media does everything within and outside of their power to associate em with nazi in public opinion. france the same.

new rising powers will always be called extremist and pushed towards the border of whats acceptable. everyone who associates himself with them has to bear the nazi label. easy to keep followings small that way. once that step has been finished. all the "normal" people will have to leave them due to pressure from employers for example. after that, its a self fulfilling prophecy. the organization becomes a crapshot because only ones whore left are social outcasts.
Click to expand...

I agree that new/rising powers tend to be called extremists because they don't fall within the accepted parameters of what people tend to label 'popular opinion.' But it doesn't follow then that certain examples of actual extremism (like ties to racists) are somehow NULL simply because there 'tends to be resistance to new ideas.'

This sort of reasoning can be used for anything. How many minorities would you let off the hook for crimes 'because minorities tend to be profiles by police'? The existence of a typical reaction doesn't negate the potential that an accusation is true--especially if there exists actual evidence to support said accusation.

I have no idea if Ron Paul is racist or not. To be honest, I think he simply has a pre-Civil Rights Act mentality that causes him to overlook what many people today would see as racism. I doubt he considered himself or his views racist. To him I'm sure it's just 'common sense.'
 
At SEO Monkey:

Your thinking on this topic seems muddied. No offense, but I will not engage in discourse with someone that demonstrates such flightiness. There is nothing for me to gain.
 
SEO Monkey said:
Have racial tensions increased?
Click to expand...

Nope - nothing but racial harmony since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

1964: Harlem Riot of 1964 (Harlem neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City)
1964: Rochester riot (Rochester, New York)
1964: Philadelphia 1964 race riot (North Philadelphia section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
1965: Watts Riots (Watts neighborhood, Los Angeles, California)
1966: Division Street Riots (Humboldt Park neighborhood, Chicago, Illinois)
1966: Hough Riots (Hough community, Cleveland, Ohio)
1966: North Omaha, Nebraska (North Omaha community, Omaha, Nebraska)
1967: Tampa Riots, (Tampa, Florida)
1967: Texas Southern University Riot (Houston, Texas)
1967: 1967 Detroit riot (Detroit, Michigan)
1967: Buffalo riot (Buffalo, NewYork)
1967: Milwaukee Riot (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
1967: Minneapolis North Side Riots (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
1967: 1967 Newark riots (Newark, New Jersey)
1967: Plainfield riots (Plainfield, New Jersey)
1968: Orangeburg massacre (Orangeburg, South Carolina)
1968: Nationwide riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
1968: Baltimore riot of 1968 (Baltimore, Maryland)
1968: Chicago (April 1968) (Chicago, Illinois)
1968: Louisville riots of 1968 (Louisville, Kentucky)
1968: 1968 Washington, D.C. riots (Washington, D.C.)
1969: 1969 York Race Riot (York, Pennsylvania
1969: Stonewall riots (Greenwich Village neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City, New York)
1970: May 11th Race Riot (Augusta, Georgia)
1970: Jackson State killings (Jackson, Mississippi)
1971: Camden Riots (Camden, New Jersey)
1972-1977: Escambia High School riots (Pensacola, Florida)
1980: Miami Riots (Miami, Florida)
1980: Chattanooga Riot (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
1984: Lawrence, Massachusetts Race Riot: A small scale riot centered at the intersection of Haverhill and railroad streets between working class whites and Hispanics; several buildings were destroyed by Molotov cocktails; August 8, 1984.
1990: Inglewood High School riot (Inglewood, California): A riot that broke out in front of the school between 30 Latinos and blacks after the black students leave the Cinco de Mayo day as revenge for running out on Black History Day.
1991: Crown Heights riot (Crown Heights neighborhood, Brooklyn, New York)
1992: Los Angeles Riots (Los Angeles, California): In a reaction to the acquittal of all LA police officers involved in the videotaped beating of Rodney King; riots broke out mainly involving black youths in the black neighborhoods and shop owners in Korean neighborhoods.
1996: St. Petersburg Riots (St. Petersburg, Florida): After Officer Jim Knight stopped 18 yr. old Tyron Lewis for speeding, his car lurched forward causing Knight to fire his weapon, fatally wounding the black teenager. Riots broke out and lasted for about 2 days.
2001: Cincinnati riots (Cincinnati, Ohio): In a reaction to the acquittal of Steven Roach after the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black male, Timothy Thomas, during a foot pursuit, riots broke out over the span of a few days.
2003: Benton Harbor riots (Benton Harbor, Michigan)
2005: 2005 Toledo Riot (Toledo, Ohio): A race riot that broke out after the Neo-Nazi protest marched through a black neighborhood.
2006: Fontana High School riot (Fontana, California): Riot involving about 500 Latino and black students
2006: Prison Race Riots (California): A war between Latino and black prison gangs set off a series of riots across California
2008: Locke High School riot(Los Angeles, California)
2009: 2009 Oakland Riots (Oakland, California): Peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Oscar Grant, by a BART transit policeman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IceToEskimos
Vhaeos said:
"Relationship" with people like don black. Don Black donating to him =! him supporting Don Black. I've read through a large chunk of this. There was no proof. All they had was this nazi asshole saying he met with Ron Paul. So what. It's insanely easy to meet with Ron Paul, he'll meet anyone after a speech. Hence that picture. The worst thing that came out of this is that it turned out a few people somewhat high up in the campaign were racists. (I believe campaign coordinators for Texas & Illinois.)

Not sure what happened to those guys, can only hope that the campaign extricated them.
Click to expand...

It goes well beyond "Don Black donating to him." If that's all there was to it, I doubt it would be an issue.

Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends And Supporters | Breaking News for Black America
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Nope - nothing but racial harmony since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

1964: Harlem Riot of 1964 (Harlem neighborhood, Manhattan, New York City)
1964: Rochester riot (Rochester, New York)
1964: Philadelphia 1964 race riot (North Philadelphia section of Philadelphia, ........
Click to expand...

And this proves that post 1964 was worse than pre 1964?
 
SEO Monkey said:
It goes well beyond "Don Black donating to him." If that's all there was to it, I doubt it would be an issue.

Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends And Supporters | Breaking News for Black America
Click to expand...
Your little blurb provided nothing aside from Don Black donating to him and him not returning the donations. Don Black organizing a money bomb is still just him donating. It's not like Don Black needed official campaign recognition to throw an event. As for it being an issue simply because it was "reported" on. I would disagree with that. Media reports on dumb shit all the time. Gets even worse when the media in question is some blogger.
 
Ron Paul is not capable of being a racist since he does not view people in groups, but rather as individuals.

Anyway, I think this is a positive thing. You can't be in a position to potentially become president of the United States without catching a ton of shit on the way there. The fact that he is starting to catch some shit means he is making progress.

Sort of like when you get to the last level of Mario Bros. and all of a sudden there are Koopa Troopas everywhere, some of them flying, and fucking giant bullets coming out of nowhere. Shit kicks into high gear when you start getting close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom