Come on Ron Paul and your Klan of support; lets go.
On sites such as digg and reddit there is an overwhelming amount of support for Ron Paul that equates to nothing more than a small branch of loud mouth aggressive braggarts that are pushing a libertarian further than he deserves to go. Mr. Paul’s supporters are pushing to drown out any criticism of his campaign. His supporters have waged an online campaign of omission to keep contradictory data out of common use thus implying that Ron Paul is a better candidate than he really is. No matter what rationale is used to point out the flaws of Ron Paul someone always comes back with a justification. If you criticize his position in online polls as false, his fund raising in New Hampshire is brought up. But if you then use fund raising on a national level as your benchmark you’re criticized for turning politics into an exclusionary money race. For Ron Paul supporters there is no acceptable way to bring counterpoints to his campaign. Any attempt to show his campaign as unelectable elicits a petulant howl from all the politico crybabies that want their darling boy to win. This is nothing short of an act of propaganda. Internet trolls spam websites to drown out everything except when Ron Paul belts out another clever sound bite. There is no excuse for a campaign that quietly accepts such behavior from it’s supporters, Ron Paul accepts the actions of an internet gang to protect his image online. By not actively opposing this behavior he supports it.
Mr. Paul runs as a former libertarian outsider, but he has served 9 terms in congress, and only as a Republican. Mr. Paul stated in a CNN debate that “Roe vs Wade ruined it for everyone”. Mr. Paul voted against allowing adoption amongst non-married non-related couples (i.e. homosexual couples). Mr. Paul did not vote for the Iraq war, but voted for unchecked military retaliation after 9/11. This is not the platform of an enlightened conservative. This is the platform of a traditional Republican that draws more influence from the bible than the reality of his surroundings. Mr. Paul consistently votes against legislation that supports contraceptives and abortions. Mr. Paul voted against background checks at gun shows (now an easily exploited loophole to get guns fast and unmonitored). Mr. Paul has voted in line with the interests of the John Birch Society since 2004. This man is not the best candidate for the presidency and it’s time that the truth about it came out. In the first paragraph of his “about” page he buys into the standard Republican rhetoric of being a champion of “freedom”. The rest of his about page continues with a cascade of buzzwords that attempts to do nothing more than make you think he’s a swell guy.
Ron Paul may be running for president, and he’s entitled to a voice within that process, but his online supporters have forgotten what it means to allow for opposing views or criticism. No where is the process of suppression more apparent than online when trying to shed light on this conservative. Mr. Paul’s supporters are not only conservative in their views, but they are narrow minded in hearing opposing views and terribly thin skinned little children. Conservative politics should not be in step with censorship, nor should they be in step with such a contradictory candidate.
Mr. Paul, it is admirable that you’re working to earn the highest office in the land, but you really got to do something about your Nazi fascist supporters.
~C
(x posted)
This is certainly spicy. While I agree that Ron Paul supporters are by and large aggressive and douchey, I do not believe they differ greatly from any candidates supporters and I find flaw in the logic that by not denouncing some of the more inflammatory things said by his supporters he gives it his support. As far as his voting inconsistencies, I think it has some merit. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up his racist tendencies. Nice post though
I didn’t know he was a racist.
I bring up Ron Paul in specific mostly because I’m most aware of his propaganda campaign. I think that the online activity about Ron Paul is noticeable enough his campaign could release a statement about it.
Glad to hear more people talking about this, although you should be prepared for a bunch of negative comments from Ron Pauliacs finding this post via Technorati. You may also be interested in the following: Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings?, and A progressive viewpoint on Ron Paul.
So let me get this straight:
Bloggers post things about Ron Paul at their websites.
People who are interested in Ron Paul show up and read the blog postings and then leave comments.
Bloggers cry.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I really see where you’re coming from on this one. How DARE those horrible, mean fascist bullies post comments on blogs!
Don’t worry, if you just stamp your feet some more I’m sure they’ll stop.
Oh, he is definitely not a racist.
Uninformed. Prose before knows is more like it.
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”-Ron Paul
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”-Ron Paul
@rinkuhero- ZING BANG BOOM
uh oh. someone got owned!
“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”-Ron Paul
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” -Ron Paul
I’m not sayin’ the guys all bad, but he needs a fucken racial sensitivity class. And hey, at least he’s open about his racism. Most republicans are closet white supremacists
Lew Rockwell actually wrote the text in question. Even Eric Dondero, who hates Paul now and is challenging him in the primary for Paul’s House seat, has acknowledged that the article in question was ghostwritten. I wasn’t there, but I have no reason not to believe that. In my experience in libertarian politics, half the things with Ron Paul’s name or Ayn Rand’s name on them actually were written by hangers-on.
Having Lew Rockwell as a friend definitely is a black mark against Paul, I can concede that. But the other Republican candidates have black marks like “Slobbers with ecstasy at the thought of torturing prisoners” and “Masturbates to the idea of bombing Iran” and “Thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that people rode dinosaurs as horses” so I have to settle for Paul.
The reason his supporters are so adamant about his chances for winning is simple: If people think you can’t win, you can’t win. Far too many people refuse to vote for somebody — even if they think he’s the best candidate — if they think nobody will join them. So, if you want your candidate to win, people have to think he can win. And let’s be honest here: Even the primaries aren’t for another six months. It’s foolish to count someone out just because you heard some Fox News pundit say it or because when you poll people who don’t know who he is, they don’t vote for him.
Another part of the problem is that people on the internet spread massive amounts of misinformation and do a lot of selective quoting. For example, you quote him as saying “Roe vs Wade ruined it for everyone.” But you leave out the context, which is that he thinks it should be decided by the states rather than the federal government and that the court decision eliminated that possibility. While many people still may not agree with that, by framing it the way you do, you misrepresent his true position. The result is that supporters who don’t want this misinformation spread all over the place have to trawl the internet finding it and correcting it. And I also see you blaming him for voting in favor of the attack on Afghanistan to go catch Osama bin Laden. The vote for which was, if I remember correctly, unanimous.
Even in this discussion: The racism thing, for the ten thousandth time, has been debunked. People keep saying it like it’s news. It’s from over 15 years ago, and all that actually happened was that some damn fool write some racist things in a newsletter with Ron Paul’s name on it. He has since disclaimed the statements and apologized for not keeping better tabs on what people were writing on his behalf. But now “he’s a racist”. Nevermind what he actually writes about racism and how stupid it is, that’s not important, what’s important is that people have found a way to attack him personally and make him appear to be as unclean as the corrupt authoritarians he’s running against actually are.
So his supporters are aggressive. So what? Are we supposed to go hide in the corner while people spread lies about him?
“For example, you quote him as saying “Roe vs Wade ruined it for everyone.” But you leave out the context, which is that he thinks it should be decided by the states rather than the federal government and that the court decision eliminated that possibility”
But Jack, this is not an issue of states rights, and it was not taken out of context. the debate question was directly about abortion. Roe v Wade and all associated cases are not simply about a medical procedure but about someone’s individual rights. This court case is a legal protection of someone’s right to decide about their own body. Mr. Paul’s opposition to Roe V Wade shows that he supports the strength of the state over the rights of the individual.
Okay dude, I’m a Ron Paul supporter…let’s go!
In your title and first line of text, you label Ron Paul and his supporters with ‘Fascism’, ‘SS’, and ‘Klan’. And you finish your rant with ‘Nazi fascist supporters’. A common tactic of a Ron Paul Hater. And you wonder why we would take any offense???
The only reason you didn’t call him racist or homophobe is you didn’t do much research at the other Ron Paul hater sites. Try DailyKOS; there are some totalitarian socialists and communists that have done a much better job trying to smear Dr. Paul than you have.
You complain that we try to drown out critisism, but your article is nothing more than spew and misinformation. You state that his website contains “a cascade of buzzwords that attempts to do nothing more than make you think he’s a swell guy.” How about going to ronpaul2008.com and reading about his stand on issues a little more. Or how about ronpaullibrary.org ? There are over 800 speeches and articles from Dr. Paul. If you want to criticize the guy…at least do some reading first. Otherwise, you’re just going to look like another ignorant hater.
Maybe if you wrote an informed, intelligent critique of Dr. Paul’s positions and why you disagree with what he says (less government, more liberty, a return to constitutional government) we could have a reasonable discussion. Ha ha. Yea…right. Like THAT will happen!
Of course now we’re getting into the whole abortion debate, but it really depends on how you look at it. If baby is living inside a woman’s body and is 8 months past conception, it can generally survive outside of the woman’s body. If you were to take it out and then kill it, it would be murder. Yet if you kill it before you take it out, it’s not. It’s kind of nonsensical. Now, obviously, you have to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you end up arresting people for murder for not having children, or allowing the murder of six week old infants. But where you draw that line is a matter for debate. People don’t agree on it, and for that reason it seems like exactly the sort of thing that should be decided on a local level — certainly not something that should be decided at the federal level. A lot of libertarians will argue that it should be decided so locally that it’s on an individual level, and that’s valid, but answer this: Should the illegality of murder be decided on an individual level? After all, some people feel they should have the right to kill you if they like. And a baby is a different person than its mother.
Fluffy and Jack, thanks for bringing my attention to the 1992 document debate. It seems likely that it was ghost written, and I would like to apologize for propagating that bit of half-truth.
That being said, Ron Paul has other racially dubious positions to his name. As you likely are aware, he came out in stark opposition to the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it increased racial tension, while restricting liberty.
Now Ill be the first to admit that the Civil Rights Act hasn’t quite lived up to expectations, but it has served valuably in combating a good many of the ills of prejudice. To be indifferent to the good that has come from the Civil Rights Act is to be either obtuse as all hell or racist.
As such, I suspect that he gave his approval to that Newsletter. tacit if not direct.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 Heres an interesting discussion about the supposedly ghost written comments.
Considering that the Supreme Court made the decision of Roe v. Wade, and it wasn’t the will of the people that made it the law of the land, I don’t see how you claim it was the will of the state that made it so and that Rep. Ron Paul is ’supporting the strength of the state’.
Also considering that Jane Roe (Norma L. McCorvey) recanted her statement of being raped and her support of Roe V. Wade, also makes Roe V. Wade moot. The Supreme Court can’t make legal decisions based on a lie and fraud on the court. In this case, since Ms. McCorvey lied about the initial rape, committed perjury in court, and the original lawsuit was based on those lies, Roe V. Wade would have to be overturned.
The Supreme Court ruling would be found void and the States would again be able to determine if Abortion was legal or illegal until such a time that another woman was denied access to an abortion.
Stifly -
I think that the specific portions of the Civil Rights Act that Paul was against – the public accomodations provisions and the employment provisions, or the ones that impacted private business owners in other words – may have been necessary infringements upon liberty at the time they were enacted. The South had been under the sway of various paramilitary terror groups for so long that something had to be done to break the hold on the culture that segregation had down there. But I think over time that element of our Civil Rights legislation has contributed more than anything else to the growth of our overly-litigious society, I think it’s been used as a precedent for even worse anti-liberty legislation and regulation, and I also think it no longer serves a major purpose.
@ TX Lil El- I think you’ll find that the legal arguments in Roe v Wade exist independently of Norma L. McCorvey’s potential perjury. While standing was based on her being denied an abortion, the fact that she lied about being raped is inconsequential to the courts arguments, and in fact the court can make a decision even if a minor part of its genesis was supposedly a lie.
[...] Korea Link to Article iraq Internet Fascism and the SS of Ron Paul » Posted at Prose Before Hos on [...]
@ Fluffy – that’s a fair viewpoint, but its not one that Rep. Paul entirely agrees with. He says “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.” I think the many minorities, who’ve been able to go to diners hotels and bathrooms previously denied to them, would hold that the Civil Rights Act did enhance freedom. I think it says something about Ron Paul that he ignores the freedom secured by the Civil Rights act. Couple that with his 1992 and 1996 newsletters and it starts to paint a picture.
I guess that is for the courts to decide. writ of errors have overturned case law before, but ultimately Alvinblahs contention that Ron Paul’s supports the State is a straw man argument since the state was never the one that originally decided the abortion issue, the Courts did.
the courts are one in the same as the federal state. They are the highest authority because we all say so.
To arbitrarily throw out the ruling of the court is to throw out a serious pillar of our culture and system of government.
When Ron Paul says that roe v wade ruined it for everyone it still attacks the idea that the court system protects the minority, and that a strong federal system is needed for that. And to advocate that a human/personal rights issue is to be decided by local levels defies the sense of protection many minority views in America needs.
So, when Ron Paul supports the rights of the local state in this issue, he is doing so over the rights of the individual. This can be seen as a greater issue with libertarianism, but Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian. He is a Republican.
“On sites such as digg and reddit there is an overwhelming amount of support for Ron Paul that equates to nothing more than a small branch of loud mouth aggressive braggarts that are pushing a libertarian further than he deserves to’ go.”
“Internet trolls spam websites to drown out everything except when Ron Paul belts out another clever sound bite.”
You presented absolutly no evidence for either of these positions. You can’t expect to launch baseless “facts” and maintain a single ounce of credibility.
Lets see, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Nope, You still have it wrong. Why not actually read the Constitution.
BTW, when you call Ron Paul supporters Fascists you might want to look the word up.
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.
Since both Ron Paul and his supporters think that the individual is key to a free nation your use of fascists shows how ignorantly and blithely you throw that word around.
dude.. you just looked up fascism on wikipedia
And you are ignoring that you used it incorrectly
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
From http://www.dictionary.com is that better?
Again, Ron Paul is trying to reduce the size of the Federal government and none of his supporters want anything to do with stringent economic controls, nor do they want Ron Paul as a dictator.
You just won’t admit you misspoke when calling his supporters Nazi Fascists
Their methods of pushing ideas have much in line with fascism. You know it to be true, you just can’t admit it.
So we are censoring and terrorizing you. Okay, I will stop writing to your blog so you can feel safe, all alone in your blog.
I am sorry that you can’t have a conversation with someone and not feel like you are being hounded or followed. You do know they have drugs to combat paranoid schizophrenia, right?
the bush neocons are the facists…
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Thanks for the site link. I took the time to review his voting record and found that he’s introduced legislation to REPEAL the Patriot Act (as well as voting against in the first place). He’s also called fo the withdrawl of ALL US troops, from all over the world – no more military empire. Obama, Clinton, (and Pelosi, as speaker) have all said NO option is off the table concerneing Iran. That means NUKES. Even Kucinich, while criticizing the recent resolution against Ahmadinejad, expressed COMPLETE support the fascist Israelis. Uh, no thanks.
NO EMPIRE. Ron Paul for President. (thanks blogger for the info)
pee wee,
you’re pulling this off a campaign website. most of that data is already spun to some angle. Do some independent research. The united states is tied to many countries around the world through its military, these are actions that developed long before any current circumstance, and for better or worse are not going to change cause Ron Paul said so. It is worth taking some time and really looking hard at the reality of the world and realizing that blanket withdraws not only don’t work, but place the responsibility of behavior upon a party that was never part of the process.
It is a flawed judgment to say that pulling straight out of Iraq is the only way, it is also just as flawed to demand that an oppressed people (that never overthrew their leader, he was invaded) develop their own democracy. Democracy comes from and is protected by those that demand it. The Iraqis never demanded democracy, we did.
It is the job of the U.S. to begin a peace accord to end this conflict with all parties, not an uninformed withdraw without regard to long term consequence.
Iran is a real threat to the U.S. Not because they have nuclear weapons. But because they are on a fast track to eliminate oil dependency. Oil is running out in the world, it is a finite resource. 10, 15,500 years from now..it doesn’t matter. Iran will be stable and oil free, the USA will not. That is when this nation becomes dangerous, in no way before this magic date.
Ron Paul is all about govt reduction, but those reductions only help those that don’t need it. No support of free market helps the destitute or the oppressed. The trickle down effect is a proven failure.
Ron Paul has a lot of fans, and a lot of flawed politics. It’s not for any president to block off options. It’s not the role of the office. You can think what you will about the candidate, but the leader of the country never creates self-imposed limits. that is the balance of government. OF COURSE no one will take it off the table.
Israel is a powerful lobby, but it is also a nation full of Americans. Many many many americans travel and live there and have relatives. Like it or not, we will maintain a strong association with that country because we do have such close ties there.
Pee wee, I’d love it if you read more than what was on Mr. Paul’s website. But you haven’t. I’m a leftist socialist that’s all about peace and love, but there are some cold harsh facts that mr. paul’s policies don’t abide with.
On top of that he’s a straight up republican that is against homosexuality, and for the 10 commandments on state building land.
He can take that and shove it.