For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"? Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.) Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it? Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack." Please don't accuse me of something like that without adequate reason for doing so.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens Your first problem was that you leveled a personal attack against me for posting a video you didn't like. I didn't make the video, and even the title comes from YouTube.
Your point about the video lacking details was legitimate, but the implicit accusation of dishonesty on my part wasn't. I did provide you with a link to more info so you'd have the sources that back this up, and hopefully get you to cool off a bit.
Your response? Repeating the personal attack, and dismissing the link.
I get it, it's hard when people say nasty things about your personal hero. But you really ought to think long and hard about what's going on with Ron Paul and white supremacists. Lashing out at the messengers doesn't make the problem go away, it's just a way of digging in and refusing to look at what's really bothering you.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

Look, you can diminish the value of this discussion by resorting to nonsensical humor, or you can actually add something to the conversation.

There are lots of things that irk me about this post (and its title, and some of the comments), but to suggest a link between states' rights and white supremacy is especially (and intellectually) insulting.

We (Americans) pay so much lip service to our constitution—our presidents, our congressmen, our federal civil servants all swear oaths to uphold and defend it—and yet it's continually trashed, both by the politicians themselves and by a general public which chooses either to ignore certain of its stipulations or else willingly forgo any thorough understanding of it. (With your last comment, you're showing an absolute lack of appreciation for a federal system which allots certain privileges to the federal government and certain privileges to the states.)

I happen to think it a curious thing that we're so obsessed with our constitution; I see a lot of similarities between people who worship the constitution and people who worship certain holy books. It was a remarkable document when it was written, sure, but in many ways it's outmoded, and it's certainly vague enough in some of its important passages to cause a considerable amount of disagreement in its interpretation. For better or for worse, though, it's the foundation of our government, and we can't just take the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't like. If there are things about it we disagree with, or if we no longer agree with the form of government it enshrines, then we ought to abolish it and write a new constitution, or else amend it so that certain things are made more clear, or brought more up to date with our current understanding of ethics and morality and political and social theory. I think part of what makes American politics so comically absurd, at times, is that our society is trying to reconcile two radically different ideals, namely the extreme emphasis on individual liberty (as dictated by our constitution) and the socially progressive emphasis on communal responsibility.

/end rant

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If you consider the fact that freedom constitutions the liberty gold if freedom gold is in accordance with liberty freedom, then it should follow that liberty liberty gold liberty isn't any more constitutional than liberty liberty constitution liberty. (In other words: freedom)

>> ^aurens:
I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

I think it's more that states' rights go hand in hand with the constitution.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is driving the Paulies nuts because they can't blame it on the 'lamestream' media. 'State's rights' and white supremacy go hand and hand.

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"

Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.

Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.>> ^NetRunner:

@aurens got that out of your system? Good. Now click the link.
Enjoy!

I'm calling you out because you posted an uninformative video with a spurious and sensationalistic title. (See @Grimm's comment above.) If Ron Paul is inappropriately connected to white supremacists, then by all means: expose him! This video certainly doesn't do the trick.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.
For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-
mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

This is terrifying—in the Orwellian sense.

This video is a refutation of its title!

Hmm ... somehow this accidentally posted twice?

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-on-Gingrichs-Moon-Colony-1

This is Samuel Beckett's version of the nightly news.

(The camera zoom is key.)

Sigh. I was hoping my enthusiasm would make up for that.>> ^siftbot:

Post cannot be self promoted by original submitter aurens because aurens does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

*Promote the laughter!

Creativity > Routine

How about now? (Embed updated.)>> ^Sagemind:

Crap - Blocked in Canada!