Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ron Paul Is a Racist, Anti-Israel, Homophobic, Nutjob (But We Knew That Last Time, Too)

It is interesting that, once again, Ron Paul's extremist past has emerged to bite him in his present day behind. His whackjob, militia friendly, the black helicopters are coming, racist, homophobic, anti-Israel "newsletters" from the 1980s and 90s have re-emerged and are shining a light on the man's true beliefs. Though Paul claims that he never wrote or even read the newsletters that had names like the "Ron Paul Political Report" and "The Ron Paul Survival Report," no one (except his most rabid followers) believes him. In fact, video footage of Paul from C-Span back in 1995-96 clearly shows him taking credit for the ideas in the newsletter and advocating its philosophy. He wrote the stuff, okay. But this is hardly new. During the last presidential election cycle, I wrote about Paul three times and pointed out his racism and all the other "-isms" he is guilty of. Here are links to those postings from 2007-08:

Ron Paul: Just Another Right Wing Whackjob After All

Republican Ron Paul's Racist Past

The Ron Paul You Don't Know


Anonymous said...

Another article written by a kooky Paul denier. Too bad for the Paul deniers that he's leading. You wont be able to deny it much longer.

Dave Splash said...

Deniers? I don't deny he exists, nor do I deny that he is a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, paranoid, nutbag. Nor do I deny that he could win the Iowa caucus. It is you who denies that Paul wrote those vile newsletters and that they reflect his belief system. You, sir, are the Paul denier.

Anonymous said...

Nice try crackpot. Let's address a few of those.

Ron Paul a racist:

What do some black people think?

Anti-semitic? HA! Nice trick! Proof:

Go ahead and keep deceiving yourself at your own peril.

Paranoid,nutbag? Well of course those are Ad hominem attacks, and used by people who can't defend their own beliefs.

Keep on trying to create false realities to make yourself feel better. "The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency." derp!

Dave Splash said...

You're funny, man, but thoroughly unconvincing. Like a typical right-winger, your "proof" is little more than finding someone else to say what you already believe. Not actual proof.

How can you believe a man who published something called the Ron Paul Political Report, yet claims he never wrote or even read them? Why did Paul take credit for the same newsletters during his 1996 congressional campaign on national television?

Arguing with a Ron Paul fanatic is a tremendous waste of time. I can defend my own beliefs, but the issue here is Ron Paul's beliefs.

Calling me a crackpot and someone who "creates false realities"? Really, have you ever heard of the psychological term of "projection"?

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

Like most on the far right, you live and breathe projection.

Dave Splash said...

Anonymous said...

Hah. Nice try again, but far from the mark. =P

I consider an Israeli ministers own words about using the term "anti-semitic" as a trick to be as credible as you can get. Straight from the horses mouth. Unlike you, I don't look between the lines for things that do not exist. I focus on the painfully obvious, while you can't point to one thing Ron Paul has said directly. Instead you attack him through his associates, which we all know is a hypocritical strategy. We all have less then admirable "associates". Ron has already admitted fault in his lax oversight of his newsletter.

I suffer from projection? How about you suffer from projection and you're projecting that onto me? Which seems more likely the case, considering it seems as though you critical thought process is incredibly damaged.

Im a far right winger? Well, call me what you will. I supported Clinton (both of them), and I supported Obama, I hated Bush (both of them), but yet I'm a "typical right winger". No - quite the opposite.

I'm just someone who is fed up with nonsense like you're spouting right now. Sick of the left and right arguing like it makes a difference. I support individual liberties and following our constitution, and having a sound currency. Whoever supports that, is whom I support. I was fooled by Obama. This time it's different. It's different for a lot of people, thus the movement. Yet you're too blind to see it.

Jeez. I'd rather argue with a brick than an "enlightened liberal" or neo-con.

Get a clue.

Dave Splash said...

Whatever. He wrote those newsletters and it is simply not credible to say otherwise. That means, the words do come from him and not his "associates" as you claim.

Why do you care what I think anyway. I would never, ever vote for someone who says he doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon, that the US should NOT have entered into WWII, and that slavery should not have been ended by force (he suggested the federal government should have bought the slaves from the owners). Funny, the only federal expenditure he approves of is paying off racist slaveholders.

I am going to vote for Pres. Obama's re-election. I've already decided. Your denials about the real Ron Paul have done nothing to dissuade me.

admthrwn said...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about seriously??

Of course I support states rights. States rights are the ultimate form of competition. States compete for citizens, when states compete taxes go down and individual liberties go up. A state never wants to lose citizens, and it's in its best interest to keep its citizenry happy. When the federal government gets involved in state issues and creates blanket laws for all 50 states, it removes competition. At least with states, if the State is enforcing bad legislation a citizen can leave to a neighboring state (yeah that sucks BUT), if the Federal government enforces bad legislation then the people have no where to go to escape injustice. So instead of just one state being effed up, now you have all 50 states effed up.

I dont care if the guy is a religious extremist or agnostic or atheist, he isn't forcing me to live by his way of life so why should I give a crap? If he started enforcing "religous extremist" legislation then yes, thats a problem. But he isn't spouting that, he is teaching us of personal responsibility, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, ect...

I dont know what you're getting at with taxes and roads. If you think that our "tax money" pays for the roads, you're sorely mistaken. The only tax money that pays for the roads is the taxes you pay at the pump. It's called the gasoline tax, which is specifically for road infrastructure. It doesn't come out of the federal income tax or the state income tax.

If you're referring to being against "stimulus funding", then yes, there should be no stimulus funding either. It's a noble cause, but very unethical. The more we spend money we don't have the more inflation we have. Inflation is a horrible tax. It's a devaluation of our currency. This hurts the poor and the elderly the MOST. It hurts the ones "liberals" claim they care so much about.

When grannie is living off a fixed income at 1k dollars a month, how do you think it effects her when she can only buy 800 dollars worth of goods now that her money has been devalued. Same as the poor.

Do you think rising prices help the poor, the middle class, and the elderly?? Well that's what happens when you print money, or borrow from the future like is being done right now. All in the name of "creating jobs".

The government doesn't create anything, it takes it from the private sector by forced compliance.

Also, Paul voted FOR the power to go after bin laden. He was against invading a soverign country and killing thousands of innocent civilians over a 10 year period of time. Funny how the anti-war people who support Obama were really just anti-bush. They could give a crap about war as long as "their guy" is in office. Selfish fools.

Dave Splash said...

Well, you succeeded. You got Ron Paul talking points on my site. Enjoy it.

I still don't take you too seriously because you refused to even acknowledge (let alone refute) the issue of the authorship of the many Ron Paul newsletters. His denials are not credible. He wrote them and he is lying about it. You may not care about his lying, but I think it says something about his character.

His personal views (like those of everyone) will seep into his governance were he actually elected. It already has. You haven't seen it yet because he has never held any position of importance in government. He is a long term Congressman. But he is not connected to a single piece of significant legislation that has passed in the last 30 years. He is a GOP back-bencher who has never risen anywhere in Congress.

Paul was right on one thing. His vote against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. But Russ Feingold voted the same way. Should I assume you were a Feingold supporter?

Don't answer that. I don't care.

If Paul runs 3rd party or independent, I'd be interested in his candidacy. He will not win the GOP nomination under any circumstances. I'd love to see him go indy so he ensures an Obama victory.

Lastly, the issue of "states' rights" was settled by the Civil War. My side won. Yours and Ron Paul's lost. And Ron Paul publicly stated that he opposed the assassination of Bin Laden after it happened. That is the epitome of ridiculousness, and it is an indefensible position for a member of the US Congress to take.

admthrwn said...

Also, I'm not trying to persuade you. "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth." I am simply rebutting your statements.

So you think that every country that has ended slavery would have been better off with a civil war then without??

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Maybe you should blog about Abraham Lincoln being a racist. Those were HIS words.

Here are some more of Lincolns words:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;"

Google is your friend. Mainstream media is not.

Dave Splash said...

Abe Lincoln said it in 1858, and his actions spoke much louder than those words. Ron Paul said much, much worse in the 1990s, over 130 years later.

So you think that every country that has ended slavery would have been better off with a civil war then without??

This is why you make no sense. I never said or even implied that. I spoke of the US Civil War, as Paul was. Anyone with an IQ above 70 (google this) knows that, and I suspect you do, too. You were smart enough to vote Obama once, so you can't be a complete dullard.

Ron Paul speaks the language of the secessionists, holds the same view of the Constitution they did, and he still does not understand the implications of the South's loss. Lincoln fought to save the US from people like him. The idea of Ron Paul as president is an anathema to everything Lincoln achieved as president, and a serious step backward from all the progress of the 20th century. If you want to see what libertarianism mixed with religious fanaticism looks like, visit Somalia. I don't want that crap here.

admthrwn said...

Lol "My side won" Nah nah nah nah boo boo!

Your side didn't win buddy, we ALL lost. Obama just signed the amendment to the NDAA bill allowing it to assassinate US citizens without due processes of law if it deems them to be "terrorist". There is no accountability, they can get rid of whoever they want by accusing them of having associations with terrorist groups.

Due process of law should be respected for ALL of us, including criminals like Osama. When they deny due process to one man they can deny it to all men. If it was a "shoot out" or whatever, then yeah... kill the bastard. But if not, he should at least be tried in a court of law. If not OUR courts, then the world court, but NO ONE should be denied due process. It's a human right granted to us by our creator, God, Mother Earth, whatever you believe.

It's a fact that they have been abusing the partiot act against drug dealers. If you think they will abuse that and not abuse the NDAA bill you're sorely mistaken.

Giving power to your guy is a good idea(not) until someone you don't like takes office. That power remains and they can use it as they see fit.

Pen Jillete explains this perfectly:

P.S. I enjoyed our conversation, and Im not refusing to refute the newsletter. I cant refute it, because I don't know.