I approve of no such behavior.

The Alt Left and Alt Right are way the fuck out of line.

We can thank Obama for the rise of the Alt Left which forces the Alt Right to spring into the spotlight to counter.

I guess the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright come to mind.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Talking about Obama's 'religion' of black liberation theology, including anti-semitism and racism didn't hurt Obama, so how could a more mainstream religion like Mormonism hurt Romney?

In fact, Obama won't talk about Mormonism because he doesnt' want Romney to bring up Jeremiah Wright.

>> ^lantern53:

Evoking Jeremiah Wright is not a scare tactic. It is a legitimate question to be answered for 2008 or 2012.
Of course, after Obama threw him under the bus, all those questions went away. No man whose pastor and spiritual mentor preached 'God damn America' should ever inhabit the White House.
If you disagree, then you don't really see how America is the greatest country in the world, and you should vote for someone who feels the same way...Obama.


I don't think anyone with a pastor should inhabit the white house.

Evoking Jeremiah Wright is not a scare tactic. It is a legitimate question to be answered for 2008 or 2012.

Of course, after Obama threw him under the bus, all those questions went away. No man whose pastor and spiritual mentor preached 'God damn America' should ever inhabit the White House.

If you disagree, then you don't really see how America is the greatest country in the world, and you should vote for someone who feels the same way...Obama.

Why are you using 4 year old scare tactics that didn't work 4 years ago? From the limited footage I've seen of Jeramiah Wright, I think his heart is in the right place, even if the words he chooses to express himself with are not the best. >> ^lantern53:

I don't think most voters in America will see this, because apparently they didn't see the one where Jeremiah Wright went on about 'God damn America' and 'America's chickens are coming home to roost'.

I don't think most voters in America will see this, because apparently they didn't see the one where Jeremiah Wright went on about 'God damn America' and 'America's chickens are coming home to roost'.

'God damn America' Jeremiah Wright

Obama didn't hear it.

He does hear dreams from his father, however, socialist dreams of bring America down. It's all in his book.

Romney has been a success at everything he's tried.

But people get their news from Jon Stewart, so we may be stuck.

Veteran likes Obama=mind blown.

I wonder if we can have a dissenting opinion.

I guess it's hard to come up with something that rhymes with Alinsky, or Jeremiah Wright, or 'You didn't build that!'

>> ^lantern53:

I don't believe the USAF can teach a 'retarded' person to fly an F-102.
However, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama Sr. and Bill Ayres can apparently teach a person to despise the United States of America.


Don't want to say what your parents taught you...

I don't believe the USAF can teach a 'retarded' person to fly an F-102.

However, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama Sr. and Bill Ayres can apparently teach a person to despise the United States of America.

@quantumushroom, I'm trying to figure out how to we can find some sort of common framework between us so we can have a conversation about this. For the moment, let's just talk about Paul himself.

Upfront, here are the things I see as facts about Paul:

1. Ron Paul owned a company that published several newsletters with his name in the title.
   
2. Those newsletters contained overt, incontestably racist commentary
   
3. Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act
   
4. Ron Paul opposes having a national holiday for Martin Luther King day
   
5. Ron Paul says he's not racist
   
6. But Ron Paul has not, as far as I've been able to find, given any sort of speech where he explains the moral problem with discrimination
   
7. Ron Paul protected the identity of the author of the articles in question
   
8. When that author was independently revealed, he did not condemn the author or disassociate himself from him
   
9. People can lie about what they believe
   
10. Which Paul demonstrated by saying he didn't know about or approve what was in the newsletters, then later a reporter uncovers proof that he did know about them and approved them
    

Now what I have about Paul is what you would call a theory (and what eggheaded people like me call a hypothesis). This theory explains all those facts, and more. That theory is: Ron Paul is a racist.

I don't know it's necessarily the explanation, I'm just saying it's the best theory that fits the available facts.

Now this theory could be easily destroyed by Paul if it were false. All Paul would need to do is give one speech, where he admits to just being so grossly negligent and incompetent that he couldn't even manage a newsletter, or where he admits to having been racist in the past and tells us about his journey towards becoming a believer in racial equality.

But he hasn't done that. Instead he's gone after his accusers and critics, while refusing to concede he's made a mistake of any kind at any point, even though clearly something must've gone wrong -- his name ended up on a bunch of racist articles.

Until someone comes in with new, verifiable facts that contradict that theory, or comes up with a new theory that fits the facts better, I see no reason for anyone to say "you're wrong about Paul being racist" to me.

And just as an aside, even if Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and I were all racists, it would have zero bearing on whether Paul is racist or not.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.