Support NeoGAF

[Good Job Bob]

You know what's really sad...

all this being true, he's still probably the best Republican candidate this election, because at least he mainly means what he says. Makes you want to hang yourself.

For years though, the media has pretty well ignored Ron Paul, degraded him, brushed him off. Before most people thought it was because he seemed like a long shot, and a bit crazy. But reporters learn tons of things they never report on, for whatever reason. If they knew about this, it would explain a lot better the seeming hostility the mainstream media has towards him. And i'm not sure how i feel about not being told.

Lol, the reason the media hasn't focused on Ron Paul has absolutely zero to do with this.

 

[sprsk]

Anon needs to go after more politicians.

 

[Amir0x]

Failure to monitor, I really don't think that's corroborative enough. I think if he truly felt that way it would show up in his public comments, his speeches, etc. etc.

I think you have a really big blind spot for Ron Paul, Gaborn, and in the end it's just going to damage any possible forwarding of the libertarian movement in this country. I support many libertarian ideals, but Ron Paul is an awful person and a terrible leader for the movement - which is why nothing will ever go anywhere with him as a figurehead.

I know from the past your stances on bigotry and discrimination based on sexual preference, and you should have no different standard for Ron Paul just because he is the libertarian candidate that got closest to the sun. MAYBE it would have made sense to disqualify some of this stuff if you only had one isolated incident of perhaps some poor monitoring - but the newsletters, the on camera meeting with horrific white supremacists, the e-mails, the consistent claims from these groups that Ron Paul has met with them and sympathizes... the trail keeps getting warmer and warmer and it's close to impossible to deny at this point. With these e-mails, reporters are going to have the ability to try to verify these meetings took place. Someone is going to know. And when we find out, as we inevitably will, that it's true... I hope you're not a hypocrite and admit that this guy is a fraud and ruining the libertarian cause.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Well, I'm pro-choice personally but that's a VERY simplistic way of looking at his position. A very narrow definition on the issue.

How is it simplistic? Abortion is a choice made by females. He is against them having that choice. He is denying personal liberty because of his faith. In other words, a biblical bigot.

Again, simplistic. For example, he's such a "bigot" he voted to end DADT.

Which is meaningless considering his stance on homosexuality. He could vote for gay marriage and if his moral stance on the subject remained, guess what? He'd still be a bigot. Its called compartmentalizing.

It's certainly a litmus test for some voters, yes.

Something you seem to have no struggles with regardless.

And I feel we have over time had ample discussion on much of that evidence.

Which has ended every single time with you claiming the 'validity' of the source is in question. We simply will not see eye to eye on this and so it should be dropped.

All it would really take is one of them, and if you think Anonymous is monolithic in their perspective you're probably underestimating them.

It would take one of them to fabricate all of this? Hardly, that operation was on the backs of many of their members. It would be well known by now if this were a rogue operation.

 

[Gaborn]

I think you have a really big blind spot for Ron Paul, Gaborn, and in the end it's just going to damage any possible forwarding of the libertarian movement in this country. I support many libertarian ideals, but Ron Paul is an awful person and a terrible leader for the movement - which is why nothing will ever go anywhere with him as a figurehead.

Awful person I think is kind of a stretch, but I agree that these issues have weighted him down even though it's mostly nonsense.

I know from the past your stances on bigotry and discrimination based on sexual preference, and you should have no different standard for Ron Paul just because he is the libertarian candidate that got closest to the sun.

I don't have a different standard. I don't like bigotry but this basically comes off as racists bragging about imagined connections to a campaign of a man they like. You'll note that despite how "close" they are with Paul he never emails them, nor anyone really close him. I mean, at most there seems to be one random staffer but that hardly indicates a close relationship with them.

MAYBE it would have made sense to disqualify some of this stuff if you only had one isolated incident of perhaps some poor monitoring - but the newsletters, the on camera meeting with horrific white supremacists, the e-mails, the consistent claims from these groups that Ron Paul has met with them and sympathizes... the trail keeps getting warmer and warmer and it's close to impossible to deny at this point. With these e-mails, reporters are going to have the ability to try to verify these meetings took place. Someone is going to know. And when we find out, as we inevitably will, that it's true... I hope you're not a hypocrite and admit that this guy is a fraud and ruining the libertarian cause.

I think what it shows is white supremacists are desperate to find credibility for their world view. Paul didn't run screaming from them which, from a political standpoint he probably should and as a result they feel a bond with him even if he really doesn't reciprocate. So they'll donate, snap a simple photo at a fund raiser, etc and imagine a grand secret kinship with him.

It's wishful thinking on their part I think. I mean, maybe I have a blind spot but it seems like there's too much smoke that is all one sided, there is really no firm evidence that Paul cares about the racists at ALL.

 

[Amir0x]

Awful person I think is kind of a stretch, but I agree that these issues have weighted him down even though it's mostly nonsense.



I don't have a different standard. I don't like bigotry but this basically comes off as racists bragging about imagined connections to a campaign of a man they like. You'll note that despite how "close" they are with Paul he never emails them, nor anyone really close him. I mean, at most there seems to be one random staffer but that hardly indicates a close relationship with them.


I think what it shows is white supremacists are desperate to find credibility for their world view. Paul didn't run screaming from them which, from a political standpoint he probably should and as a result they feel a bond with him even if he really doesn't reciprocate. So they'll donate, snap a simple photo at a fund raiser, etc and imagine a grand secret kinship with him.

It's wishful thinking on their part I think. I mean, maybe I have a blind spot but it seems like there's too much smoke that is all one sided, there is really no firm evidence that Paul cares about the racists at ALL.

Right now, the best case scenario for Paul given the evidence is that being the cynical man he is he might not personally agree with bigotry but feels the financial support from white supremacists is such that it's worth pandering to them - and there is evidence that there was some active attempt with the newsletters to go a little more extreme specifically re: racism to increase readership.

From the Post:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

In its digging, the Post doesn’t find any evidence that Paul actually believed the ugly stuff filling his newsletters. It’s suggested that something else may have driven them.

“A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative,” the paper reports. “They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.”

That would still make him a bad person and a terrible leader for the libertarian movement.

But I think the evidence is now starting to build that the guy is actually complicit with the ideology, or in any case he's involved to such a degree that even though it's impossible to read his mind he is at least somewhat to blame for allowing these people constantly in his midst.

This is not a good guy, Gaborn. He was never a particularly inspiring leader, but if you genuinely ever want the libertarian movement to move on and build, the best thing is to abandon this guy and find a leader that can inspire people to believe in the core principles of libertarianism without also sacrificing a level of basic decency. A good libertarian candidate I would easily support; Ron Paul I could never support.

 

[Gaborn]

How is it simplistic? Abortion is a choice made by females. He is against them having that choice. He is denying personal liberty because of his faith. In other words, a biblical bigot.

Libertarians are very concerned with individual rights. The problem on an issue like abortion is when does a fetus acquire those rights? Personally my answer is: When the fetus would be viable outside the womb it is wrong to abort it. Paul's answer is that human life begins at conception. I disagree with him but he is not coming at it from a bigoted place.

Which is meaningless considering his stance on homosexuality. He could vote for gay marriage and if his moral stance on the subject remained, guess what? He'd still be a bigot. Its called compartmentalizing.

You seem awfully concerned with what a person BELIEVES rather than what he does. Since I'm not a mind reader and am also incapable of divining a person's true emotions I really don't care. Your absolutist position here seems a bit extreme though.

Which has ended every single time with you claiming the 'validity' of the source is in question. We simply will not see eye to eye on this and so it should be dropped.

Agreed.

It would take one of them to fabricate all of this? Hardly, that operation was on the backs of many of their members. It would be well known by now if this were a rogue operation.

Well, I'm sure would like to think you know how a super secretive group like Anonymous operates behind the scenes.

As you said though this should be dropped. I only responded anyway because you feel I was ignoring you.

 

[Vicetrailia]

If paul is not racist...then he has zero dignity what so ever.

 

[cousins]

I'm more concerned with his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and his anti-choice stance. Other people have mentioned that there's a lot of smoke here, and he probably is racist, but there's actual fire when it comes to him regarding women's and LGBT rights. I mean shit, he doesn't even believe in policies that combat sexual harassment unless the harassment involves force. And, he supported sodomy laws - and he introduced the We the People Act. I could go on. The man's a scumbag.

Edit: I guess someone already brought this up. Point remains though.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm more concerned with his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and his anti-choice stance. Other people have mentioned that there's a lot of smoke here, and he probably is racist, but there's actual fire when it comes to him regarding women's and LGBT rights. I mean shit, he doesn't even believe in policies that combat sexual harassment unless the harassment involves force. And, he supported sodomy laws - and he introduced the We the People Act. I could go on. The man's a scumbag.

Edit: I guess someone already brought this up. Point remains though.

I could say "see above" for most of these points. But just specifically on the We the People act all that really does is make the states sort out those issues on their own. I disagree with it because I think the courts should have a role but I don't disagree with the idea entirely either, we have made a lot of progress on gay marriage for example at the state level already.

 

[cousins]

I could say "see above" for most of these points. But just specifically on the We the People act all that really does is make the states sort out those issues on their own. I disagree with it because I think the courts should have a role but I don't disagree with the idea entirely either, we have made a lot of progress on gay marriage for example at the state level already.

I haven't seen anything in any posts regarding his stance on sexual harassment, and those views are published in Freedom Under Siege which is his own book.

 

[Gaborn]

I haven't seen anything in any posts regarding his stance on sexual harassment, and those views are published in Freedom Under Siege which is his own book.

he views it as an employer/employee issue which, while a little extreme is not entirely wrong. That is in large part what HR is for. Do I agree? Eh, not necessarily, though I tend to agree that it should be a state handled issue, I don't see much place for those lawsuits in federal courts.

I mean, I think part of the problem is he's not conservative enough for Republicans on some issues and on others he's WAY too conservative for liberals. He's NOT either and libertarianism like this can be hard to take. I understand philosophically where he's coming from and I generally agree with him on most issues so I can deal with it but I can understand how liberals and conservatives alike cannot.

 

[cousins]

he views it as an employer/employee issue which, while a little extreme is not entirely wrong. That is in large part what HR is for. Do I agree? Eh, not necessarily, though I tend to agree that it should be a state handled issue, I don't see much place for those lawsuits in federal courts.

I mean, I think part of the problem is he's not conservative enough for Republicans on some issues and on others he's WAY too conservative for liberals. He's NOT either and libertarianism like this can be hard to take. I understand philosophically where he's coming from and I generally agree with him on most issues so I can deal with it but I can understand how liberals and conservatives alike cannot.

I see what you're saying. But, he should at least come out and say he doesn't support certain things. And, if he's going to remove things that help people based on state's rights, he should come up with alternatives that address the issues he's talking about. If we were to simply do everything he calls for, things would be a lot worse for most involved. He seems perfectly apt to do away with things meant to protect minorities, but, other than general claims regarding the drug war, he doesn't seem to take an active role in coming up with ways to protect them.

 

[Gaborn]

I see what you're saying. But, he should at least come out and say he doesn't support certain things. And, if he's going to remove things that help people based on state's rights, he should come up with alternatives that address the issues he's talking about. If we were to simply do everything he calls for, things would be a lot worse for most involved. He seems perfectly apt to do away with things meant to protect minorities, but, other than general claims regarding the drug war, he doesn't seem to take an active role in coming up with ways to protect them.

I really don't think he intends to do this. Remember he wrote FUS in 1987. I'm sure he believes basically what he wrote but I'm also pretty sure he's realistic enough to not focus on a lot of these tangential issues if he was elected. He's got enough work dealing with the military industrial complex and ending the federal drug war. I mean, over the years he's probably taken positions on several hundred issues (and quite possibly more than that) that doesn't mean as soon as he's elected or even any time in his entire term those laws are going to change.

 

[Instigator]

Ron Paul is a racist? That news came out of nowhere!

 

[Learn2read]

Nothing strange about it to me. I fully expect to see more of this "seven degrees from x racist" nonsense as we approach the election. He's probably the only honest politician on the planet, which people love, which scares those who fundamentally disagree with his ideals. His detractors have to pull something out of their asses. Frankly, I think that this approach is going to backfire, though. It's a pretty sleezy move.

Are Paul defenders now redefining "honest" as "habitualing lying about his newsletters and racist connections"?

 

[_Xenon_]

This is more like those racists personally think Ron Paul endorses their idea rather than Ron Paul actually supports them.

BTW if this were true then wouldn't your main stream medias (fox, cnn, msnbc, etc) all over it? I mean they have been mocking Ron Paul for a while now here's the hot meat why didn't they do something?

 

[Dude Abides]

Did you even listen to what he was speaking about?

Smh, the ignorance in this thread.

Yes. He was pushing the nonsense that slavery was a secondary issue in giving rise to secession. This position is often favored by confederate nostalgists who realize straightforward white supremacy is no longer acceptable in mainstream politics. I agree with smhing at the ignorance in this thread. Yours.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Quite frankly, I don't see a single bit of fallout resulting from this. He has no chance of winning the presidency and he'll do just as well as he has before in terms of votes given the fervor of his fan base.

 

[Learn2read]

This is more like those racists personally think Ron Paul endorses their idea rather than Ron Paul actually supports them.

BTW if this were true then wouldn't your main stream medias (fox, cnn, msnbc, etc) all over it? I mean they have been mocking Ron Paul for a while now here's the hot meat why didn't they do something?

No, they've been ignoring him like they should.

 

[Steelrain]

This is more like those racists personally think Ron Paul endorses their idea rather than Ron Paul actually supports them.

BTW if this were true then wouldn't your main stream medias (fox, cnn, msnbc, etc) all over it? I mean they have been mocking Ron Paul for a while now here's the hot meat why didn't they do something?

He's not a factor anymore. No one cares.

 

[Instigator]

Has Gaborn also dodged the Washington Post article on Ron (the one amirox quoted) in other threads like he is doing in this one?

 

[IrishNinja]

im so not going through the last few pages, but if we didnt get a "please bishop don't ban em" mockup cover, that was a missed opportunity.

I blame/praise Evilore for this hilarious batch of new juniors

this was today's "way funnier than it should've been" line, for me.

you know what happens to toads who get hit by lightning

okay, this ranks too, only because ive never seen it used in a way that worked. props on the timing there.

 

[Jackpot]

This is an excellent question (despite the slur) that deserves a response from a sane member of GAF.

More to the point, vietnamese restaurants would probably be slightly more likely on average to attract vietnamese clients (along with everyone else of course) and would seem to be an odd choice.

Um, the same reason EDL members love nothing better than a take-away curry? What, were you thinking conspiracy?

 

[Rebel Leader]

Anon needs to go after more politicians.

Rick Scott
Governor Of Florida

I can't get a job no matter how much I try (Hell..not even interviews) and my mom is about to lose hers.

 

[Gaborn]

Um, the same reason EDL members love nothing better than a take-away curry? What, were you thinking conspiracy?

No, but from that poster on that racist site it seems THEY wouldn't go to such a restaurant. I just find the random claim by an avowed racist to not be credible. I understand why opponents of Paul want it to be true though, even if they have to quote a racist to make it seem true.

 

[SmokyDave]

Although I find the tracing-paper thin defense of Paul hilarious, I have to ask, do people honestly think that the other candidates are racially neutral?

Sucks that the only guy that seems to make any sense is also the only guy having his dirty laundry aired by these people. Expose the rest and show people who they're really choosing from.

 

[KHarvey16]

Nothing strange about it to me. I fully expect to see more of this "seven degrees from x racist" nonsense as we approach the election. He's probably the only honest politician on the planet, which people love, which scares those who fundamentally disagree with his ideals. His detractors have to pull something out of their asses. Frankly, I think that this approach is going to backfire, though. It's a pretty sleezy move.

Lol, honest. The man either lies through his teeth to support his ideology or he's a complete moron.

 

[IrishNinja]

Rick Scott
Governor Of Florida

I can't get a job no matter how much I try (Hell..not even interviews) and my mom is about to lose hers.

best of luck with it man, lot've folks down here in that spot, and you know damn well there's a lot of us that would be very happy to see anon take up that challenge.

 

[Instigator]

Although I find the tracing-paper thin defense of Paul hilarious, I have to ask, do people honestly think that the other candidates are racially neutral?

No. It's the Republican party after all.

Gingrinch clearly uses racially divisive language, even if with dog whistles. Mostly for political reasons. Racist pandering, essentially, like RP in the newsletters. Newt seems to think very highly of himself otherwise, more narcisistic than racist.

Santorum, I don't remember him talking much about other races, but we can assume he's like other white evangelicals.

Romney is a bit hard to pin down since he's very careful about what he says (or tries at least) and he has not much of a core. He seems to care about his Mormon faith though and unless he holds dear the obsolete mormom notion of black people being cursed, he should be in the clear. But one could assume he's mostly clueless about people of other ethnic background, just like he's clueless about anyone below his income bracket, regardless of color or ethnicity.

 

[theinfinityissue]

love revolution.

But seriously ron paul voters are some of the most categorically gullible political types I've ever ran into. Aside from all his pretty radically crazy personal beliefs, he's either completely naive or actively misleading in his ideas of what he'd do with the presidency. I sometimes think that it would be worth having him elected just to watch one of the most immediate and spectacular political failures in US history, but then I remember that I live here and that I need a functioning executive branch so I can play video games, have food, and be employed.

 

[YoungHav]

Although I find the tracing-paper thin defense of Paul hilarious, I have to ask, do people honestly think that the other candidates are racially neutral?

Sucks that the only guy that seems to make any sense is also the only guy having his dirty laundry aired by these people. Expose the rest and show people who they're really choosing from.

Every other candidate on the Republican side, with the exception of Romney to my knowledge, has said blatantly racist things and pandered to racists. We even have a dickhead named Santorum who considers a child conceived through rape as a gift from God. It's either corporate controlled Bigoted Christian Extremists on one side or Corporate Controlled "Liberals" who pretend they are for the common man and suck off their corporate masters behind closed doors at the expense of U.S. citizens on the other side. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[jayhawker]

No. It's the Republican party after all.

Gingrinch clearly uses racially divisive language, even if with dog whistles. Mostly for political reasons. Racist pandering, essentially, like RP in the newsletters. Newt seems to think very highly of himself otherwise, more narcisistic than racist.

Santorum, I don't remember him talking much about other races, but we can assume he's like other white evangelicals.

Romney is a bit hard to pin down since he's very careful about what he says (or tries at least) and he has not much of a core. He seems to care about his Mormon faith though and unless he holds dear the obsolete mormom notion of black people being cursed, he should be in the clear. But one could assume he's mostly clueless about people of other ethnic background, just like he's clueless about anyone below his income bracket, regardless of color or ethnicity.

Wow. Wow.

There are idiots in both parties. Majority Racists in any nation are going to gravitate to the more conservative party (or parties in multiparty states). Minority racists are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Poor people who are also lazy and want to game welfare systems are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Rich people who are also selfish bastards are going to gravitate to the more conservative party. There are plenty of people in both parties who don't share those awful characteristics.

It is just as ignorant to believe that a conservative catholic is racist "like other white evangelicals" as it is to believe that everyone on food stamps is a welfare whore.

 

[Yoritomo]

Every other candidate on the Republican side, with the exception of Romney to my knowledge, has said blatantly racist things and pandered to racists. We even have a dickhead named Santorum who considers a child conceived through rape as a gift from God. It's either corporate controlled Bigoted Christian Extremists on one side or Corporate Controlled "Liberals" who pretend they are for the common man and suck off their corporate masters behind closed doors at the expense of U.S. citizens on the other side. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Romney has his mormonism and its history of delaying privileges to blacks to contend with when it comes to race. I guess people could view it the same way they might view Obama's association with Rev. Wright, but the whole problem with his mormonism is the view that the only way to be mormon is through regimented orthodoxy.

 

[morningbus]

 

[Instigator]

Wow. Wow.

There are idiots in both parties. Majority Racists in any nation are going to gravitate to the more conservative party (or parties in multiparty states). Minority racists are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Poor people who are also lazy and want to game welfare systems are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Rich people who are also selfish bastards are going to gravitate to the more conservative party. There are plenty of people in both parties who don't share those awful characteristics.

It is just as ignorant to believe that a conservative catholic is racist "like other white evangelicals" as it is to believe that everyone on food stamps is a welfare whore.

Nice attempt at trying to inject political correctness into this ("they are idiots everywhere! racists are to be found in equal numbers in all areas!"), but you need to pay a bit closer attention to the current state of the Republican party and who actually stepped up to the plate to serve (as opposed to all who didn't) in the highest office in the land. It was, after all, the question I was answering.

Feel free though to point me to all the welfare whores trying to run as Democrats. It should be fun.

 

[TheNatural]

Calm down guys, Ron Paul is done anyway and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of EVER becoming even a nominee. The OP is moot.

 

[faceless007]

Wow. Wow.

There are idiots in both parties. Majority Racists in any nation are going to gravitate to the more conservative party (or parties in multiparty states). Minority racists are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Poor people who are also lazy and want to game welfare systems are going to gravitate to the more liberal party. Rich people who are also selfish bastards are going to gravitate to the more conservative party. There are plenty of people in both parties who don't share those awful characteristics.

It is just as ignorant to believe that a conservative catholic is racist "like other white evangelicals" as it is to believe that everyone on food stamps is a welfare whore.

David Brooks?

 

[Instigator]

Calm down guys, Ron Paul is done anyway and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of EVER becoming even a nominee. The OP is moot.

Nah, it's not enough that he loses, his ideology/legacy must be disgraced. Not by dirty tricks, but by exposing his own actions and skeletons. It's only fair.

Rand doesn't need to run in 2016.

 

[AzureNightmare]

Nah, it's not enough that he loses, his ideology/legacy must be disgraced. Not by dirty tricks, but by exposing his own actions and skeletons. It's only fair.

Rand doesn't need to run in 2016.

Voters will forget in 4 years, so there has to be people who remember to remind them.

 

[TheMan]

well that about does it for ol' ronny, not that he was ever going to win anyway.

 

[way more]

Why is that, Libertarians tend to be a racists.

I think this phrase best fits.

 

[winter]

So are the accusations legit? I haven't seen any coverage of this in the MSM. I know Ron Paul doesn't get the same coverage as other candidates but the media loves to report on a scandal. So where is it?

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

So are the accusations legit?

Let me finish these tacos and I"ll let you know.