Republican Presidential Race Picking Up Speed

GOPRecently the Republican Party had a presidential candidate debate with Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Surprisingly, considering how hard the mainstream news has worked to ignore him, Ron Paul was also present.

There’s a lot not to like about these goons and right now I’m still taking it all in, but what sticks in my memory is Rick “I Don’t Have A Prayer” Santorum attacking Ron Paul in the previous debate for underestimating the “threat” from Iran. Personally, I think that might be the only thing Ron Paul has gotten right, and seeing this one bit of sanity being attacked should worry us all.

In the aftermath of the debates, the question is: Who came out on top? This article offers some insight, but what does the Disinfo community think? Who’s in the lead, who will we see fall first, who will make the funniest mistake in the race? I’m putting my money on Newt Gingrich accidentally distending his jaw and swallowing a screaming minority child whole, unaware that the cameras are rolling.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Alis

    I was about to rage so hard after reading the first sentence, and then I read the second sentence.

    everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

  • Alis

    I was about to rage so hard after reading the first sentence, and then I read the second sentence.

    everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

  • Alis

    I was about to rage so hard after reading the first sentence, and then I read the second sentence.

    everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

    • Theoriginalct

      I am sooooo a black middle classed liberal type.  I also find that being able to sacrifice personal comforts for national longevity to maintain my end of a social contract, which has frequently been renigged on by the other side, good business. I heard Ron with my own two ears,
      “Gov has no right telling white people that they have to allow blacks to enter their establishments(or words to that effect).”
       If , for the good of…NO, the survival of this country depends on people like me having enough common sense and a clear expectations as to the evolution of our society, then I find it totally practical to disregard the arguments of people who lack the ability to understand, and therefore debate subjects in an objective manner.
        The spirit of public service has been degraded to the point that we have”crab in the barrel” syndrome.
        I wholly disapprove of gay guy stuff. But I fing most gay people that I met to be of higher integrity and morals many of my straight friends. and a lot more fun to boot!  You gay dudes don’t get it though. Regardless of Rons personal desires (which may be to exterminatye all blacks and gays [not]), he understands that this is a Republic.Not a Democracy. No one else seems to. For, in a Republic, Ron needs gay guys to be free, black guys to be free, abortionists and muslims also. He has said before,
       “No one has a right to tell people who to marry. That is not an argument for the Federal gov. HOWEVER, if the people in certain areas (states) develope such an animosity towards it that they choose to combat it legally, this is their constitutional right.” 
        Regardless of personal desires, how can you not trust this guy? I would so be willing to trade my right to declare extra BLACKNESS or extra GAYNESS or EXTRA ABORTIONS for the 30% in income tax that Halliiburton is bleeding me for.
      OMG; WE’RE SOL.

  • Alis

    It’s interesting that you note how Ron Paul gets minimalized, then link to an article (delete the closing bracket from the end of the URL to get it to work) that minimizes him just as well. I’ll give your first link props, though. As for what I think; I’m only really concerned with Ron Paul, and although I don’t think he’ll ever be president, whether he gets the votes for it or not, (though I’m sure as hell voting for him anyway), I hope his message resonates DEEPLY within the American psyche for some time to come. I’m not a libertarian, but I do know that our foreign policy and spending are fucked, and shit like the Patriot Act is just as mephitic.  I am also a bit fearful of Rick Perry, mainly due to his Bilderberg connections. Here’s a nifty little Facebook page you can like to help spread awareness of his involvement with them: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rick-Perry-is-a-Bilderberg-Crony/139207959502306

  • Alis

    It’s interesting that you note how Ron Paul gets minimalized, then link to an article (delete the closing bracket from the end of the URL to get it to work) that minimizes him just as well. I’ll give your first link props, though. As for what I think; I’m only really concerned with Ron Paul, and although I don’t think he’ll ever be president, whether he gets the votes for it or not, (though I’m sure as hell voting for him anyway), I hope his message resonates DEEPLY within the American psyche for some time to come. I’m not a libertarian, but I do know that our foreign policy and spending are fucked, and shit like the Patriot Act is just as mephitic.  I am also a bit fearful of Rick Perry, mainly due to his Bilderberg connections. Here’s a nifty little Facebook page you can like to help spread awareness of his involvement with them: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rick-Perry-is-a-Bilderberg-Crony/139207959502306

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-OConnell/22701398 Alex O’Connell

      Look, I certainly agree with you on Paul’s positive merits, especially, as you mention as concerns “defense” spending and perpetual war. And moreover, furthermore (being a far-left libertarian/”collectivist anarchist”), I’d certainly be the first to agree that Capital-B Big Government and sprawling bureaucracy — especially within the context of an (ostensible) constitutional republic functioning on a (fundamentally politically alienating) scale of hundreds-of-millions — is a categorical, irrefutable enemy of the sovereign citizen (to say nothing, of course, of the stateless free spirit).

      HOWEVER. Down this road lurks a dangerous, /incredibly/ dangerous misunderstanding. Yes, that Large Government is an enemy to the free man is of course is a platitude, a given. But nevertheless, I’m unhappy to say, it is NOT, it is FAR from not, the more profound enemy we confront. Corporate power (…i.e. electoral power, lobbying/special-interest power, economic power, etc etc, ad nauseam) is, unfortunately, BY FAR the greatest enemy of the free man today. Even worse, though it sickens me to admit, is the fact that no matter to what extent I despise Big Government’s mores/tenets, and indeed, EVEN if every single CRITICAL right-libertarian reform (return to grounded currency; end to the War on Drugs; end to “policing of the world”) was impossibly dangled like candy before my eyes — I still, in good conscience, could not vote for RP. Don’t get me wrong; I like the guy immensely, I’ve followed him for years, I would love to share a drink with him. But there is, today, an unprecedentedly dire enemy to social/intellectual freedom today; and unfortunately, although Government is (once again) a clear and present danger to the freedom of man: it is unfortunately also the LAST WEAPON WE HAVE LEFT. Corporate power has all but won, having established its (nearly a-historical) “perpetual present” ; and insofar as Government itself continues to be abjectly “bought”, we’re already dead in the water. In short — unfortunately, we are at a critical impasse where we NEED to be able to differentiate CLEARLY between our abstract ideological enemies and our profound and dangerous ones. In every election, every interview, there should be only one (or at least, only one peaceful) question in our minds: how likely are they to push against the current corporate oligarchy? Do they TRULY understand the importance of campaign finance reform? What are their campaign financing ties? Etc etc. Doing away with Big Government is a dire necessity, yes — but to abandon everything at this moment might be to abandon one of our last chances at effectively halting the advance of the most dangerous *(and by law amoral) enemy of them all.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        Good points. You’re clearly almost as zealously anti-corporate as I am.

        I don’t agree that Big Govt is the last weapon we have against corporations. I’ll agree that it’s a weapon, but we may disagree on who actually has their hand already on it.

        We’ve already lost the fight for control of the Federal govt to corporations. We may be able to rally at some later time and take it back, but the money is firmly in control right now.

        There are other things we can do though to bring down corps. Some clever, some ugly. Some lawful, some just merely legal, and some … well it’s best not to speak of those things.

      • Anarchy Pony

        You do gotta ask the question of who really controls the government, and it is clearly private interests, held in general by corporations. They seem to have a firm grip on that particular stick. They also have a general monopoly on the news and entertainment media. There are almost no legitimate(meaning legal) means to fight against them at this point. All that is left is the fermenting of a resistance movement(both radical and otherwise), and the encouragement of deliberate forms of sabotage.

        • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

          Shhhhh!

          • Anarchy Pony

            I know, I know, but someone has to type it out loud.

      • Alis

        Well, then, Alex, just who would you vote for? I think you make some very valid points, but I also think that more agreeable, even equally palatable candidates are conspicuously absent. Obama certainly hasn’t demonstrated much of an effort to dismantle the corporate stranglehold beyond some delightful rhetoric. Honestly, I’m of the belief that Obama is little more than a slick talking puppet, but if we entertain the idea that he’s honestly working toward challenging corporate power, and that the Republicans are just making it difficult for him, we’re still not getting very far. So, who’s the better choice? Corporations are entrenched in government affairs to such a degree that I think attempting to leverage a corrupt government to purge itself of that very same corruption would be like trying to convince someone to excise their own giant tumor without anesthetic. So, for me, starting by decreasing the size of the govt (you seem to think Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal government altogether) is a viable start. As much as I like Ron Paul, I think the “lesser of two evils” adage is applicable to most politicians, and Ron Paul is no exception. So, for you that leaves the option of abstaining or voting for another candidate.

    • Tuna Ghost

      I am also a bit fearful of Rick Perry, mainly due to his Bilderberg connections.

      I don’t particularly care about the Bildebergs or who is involved with the group, but I’m also fearful of Rick Perry.  Primarily because he advocates prayer as a viable solution to the outrageous economic situation in the US and a host of other problems whose solutions are, while difficult, definitely not in the realm of Big Poppa In The Sky.  

      Also because I’m understandably suspicious of Conservative Christians from Texas.  That last one was a bit of a doozy.  

      • GORP

        OMG….your a conspiracy theorist!  Go back to GLP or Abovetopsecret.  Fish ghosts scare me.

    • Tuna Ghost

      I’m not a libertarian, but I do know that our foreign policy and spending are fucked, and shit like the Patriot Act is just as mephitic.

      Agreed.  Ron Paul frustrates the shit out of me, though.  He’s got his head on straighter than most of the other candidates when it comes to things like Iran and the outrageous spending on defense; he’s not spitting out the bullshit about how social security and medicare/medicaid are causing the massive debt, he knows the vast majority of it comes from the Defense budget.  I also don’t think his ideas about foreign policy are as isolationist as others make them out to be.  And he’s willing to stand behind ideas that are considered extreme by the mainstream media, which I think shows conviction.

      But.  But but but.  Then you run into his anti-gay and anti-abortion stances.  The anti-abortion stuff I can forgive, I suppose.  Its a common enough misconception that a fetus is a person, and he’s definitely old school when it comes to stuff like that.  I don’t like it and I certainly don’t like his ideas on Roe vs Wade, but I can forgive it.  What I can’t forgive is his stance on homosexuality, it limits human rights and is unforgivable.  His plan to leave it up to the states to decide gay rights is basically giving a free pass to governors who want to be able to discriminate against gays.  There’s a reason why civil rights eventually became Federal business; its because states shouldn’t have the option to openly practice discrimination.  There’s no ideology worth protecting at the cost of basic human or civil rights.  And then you’ve got his frankly nutty ideas on the gold standard.  There’s a reason the world moved to a more virtual economy.  As one has to do is look at the huge problems that arose in the Mercantile Era to see why switching to a gold standard would be a silly thing to do.  

      Even if you ignore all those things, you’re still left with his blatant racism, evidence of which I provided in another comment.  

      • MadHierophant

        I’m gay, and one of my other gay friends is a huge Ron Paul supporter. I told him about his stance on gays, and he’s all 

        “BUT BUT BUT STATE’S RIGHTS!”

        which really is just missing the point. Is this how and why black or gay republicans can exist? They just cherry pick the stuff they like and ignore the rest? Because I can’t think of any other explanation besides growing them in a petri dish.

        • Tuna Ghost

          …which really is just missing the point.

          YES.  Yes, this.  Missing the point.  Yes.  Every time I talk to my Ron Paul supporting friends, I end up banging my head against a wall for the better part of an hour.  

        • GORP

          I’m gay as well and support your friend and Ron Paul.  I think your friend is spot on.  RP is trying to give us back our original constitution.  Where freedom and liberty reigns for all. 

          Why let the U.S. Gov’t dictate policy for everything.  That scares the hell out of me and it is quite frankly a dictatorship. The government is there to protect us (supposedly) only from foreign enemies.  Look how big gov’t is now!   We are a complete nanny state/country!  

          If I don’t like a state’s policy, I can move to one that is more tolerable for me.

          • Tuna Ghost

            RP is trying to give us back our original constitution.  Where freedom and liberty reigns for all. 

            Except for people in states that decide its okay to discriminate based on color or religion, of course.  

            Why let the U.S. Gov’t dictate policy for everything.

            Who said everything?  But there are issues that need to be tackled on a national level, and the Federal government is the one that needs to do that.

            If I don’t like a state’s policy, I can move to one that is more tolerable for me.

            Sure, unless you don’t have the money.  Or a job.  This whole notion of yours is built on the premise that if a state wants to discriminate they should have the right to do so, which is complete bullshit.  There is no ideology worth protecting at the cost of basic human or civil rights.

          • gorp

            States do discriminate.  Lets see……is it five states now that allow gay marriage?   Also, every state seems to have different qualifiers for unemployment and welfare benefits as well as the right to work states.  The list goes on and on.

            So yes, largely we live in states that discriminate.  I live where I’m comfortable. 

          • Tuna Ghost

            I don’t see the point in comparing qualifiers for unemployment and welfare to discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation.  They’re not the same.  They’re not even similar.  

            As for gay marriage, yes its discrimination and yes its appalling.  I don’t see how giving states more powers to discriminate is moving forward or somehow giving people more liberty.  Once again, why do you think it is?  Why do you think states should have the right to discriminate based on race or color or sexual orientation?  

            I live where I’m comfortable.

            I’m happy for you.  You’re obviously fortunate enough to be able to pick up and move when you’re uncomfortable.  But this isn’t about you, it’s about the significant portion of society that isn’t so fortunate.  

          • Anarchy Pony

            The government of a democratic or republican society is supposed to be representative of the wills of the populace, a representation of your will, if it is not doing so, why not? Because of infiltration by private interests that run counter to the will of the people. You need to do some more analysis of the situation.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=776324551 Nick Gaerlan

        personally, i think we traded awareness of class inequity and distribution of wealth for a focus on civil rights in the 1970′s. from there we became less engaged with economic and foreign policy and obsessed with morality and ‘values’. i don’t care if he’s a racist or a bigot, as long as his ideas on the more important things are right. i admit i don’t know a lot about him though, so i’ll go read up.

        • Tuna Ghost

          personally, i think we traded awareness of class inequity and distribution of wealth for a focus on civil rights in the 1970′s.

          This supposes that there is a finite space in the public awareness of issues (if something goes in, something else must be shoved out), something I’m not willing to agree with.  The awareness of these issues may have been focused on more, or the fact that it was a new development may have made it seem that it was a focus issue.  

          i don’t care if he’s a racist or a bigot, as long as his ideas on the more important things are right.

          Easy to say if you’re not affected by racism or bigotry.

      • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

        I think this is one of those situations where we shouldn’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good.

        I adore Thomas Jefferson. But I recognize that he not only owned slaves and was clearly a racist. he also raped at least one of these slaves. When she can’t say no, it’s definitely rape.

        But Jefferson did other things which were admirable. Do we reject all the good things because they have the same source as some bad things?

        Paul is a product of his time, just like any other person.  

        70 years ago when Paul was a kid, he would have been in an overtly racist and homophobic environment no matter where he lived in the United States. It’s pretty difficult to heap moral culpability on him for internalizing some of the values of those around him.

        Can we accept his baggage, given the rest of his message?

        • Tuna Ghost

          I suppose that’s the question, innit?  Honestly, if it weren’t for the racism I might be able to get behind Ron Paul.  The anti-homosexual stuff is terrible, but that tide is turning in the US and Paul won’t be able to hold it back.  But that sort of racial prejudice has no business in today’s world, regardless of where it came from.  My parents grew up in the 50′s and they didn’t internalize the prevalent racism of the day, or if they did they checked their ideas as they got older.  Just like we’re going to have to do as we get older.  

      • Alis

        Well, I don’t care much for it either, but politicians are a mixed bag and always will be. As much as I’d love to see a liberal smaller government, greater freedom candidate who also espouses an end to deleterious foreign policy practices, etc, etc. I don’t, and so I have to weigh my options. Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather short-term future of more gay rights. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the former is going to save a lot more lives.

        • Alis

          Correction: Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism
          propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather
          short-term future of more gay rights in exchange for at least some enormous strides in the direction of ending those things. One thing I’m pretty sure of is
          that the latter is going to save a lot more lives.

      • Comprep666

        take a look at gary johnson…like ron paul, but minus the anti-gay issue and a little hipper

  • YEA

    Ewwww you said Santorum
    http://spreadingsantorum.com/

  • YEA

    Ewwww you said Santorum
    http://spreadingsantorum.com/

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul gets another pass on his racism, and the other Republicans pranced about like tribal shamans.

  • Redacted

    Ron Paul gets another pass on his racism, and the other Republicans pranced about like tribal shamans.

    • DITM

      Mainly because there’s sod all evidence for Ron Paul being racist and it was all mainstream media hype.  I still say non-republicans need to vote in open primaries (or register republican for the closed ones) to push Paul through. If we keep pretending that all republicans are the same, and end up with Rick Perry 2012 because of it, then we’ve only ourselves to blame.

      • Tuna Ghost

        Mainly because there’s sod all evidence for Ron Paul being racist and it was all mainstream media hype.

        Sure, unless you count, y’know, things he has said.  To people.  People who then wrote them down.  

        First you’ve got your fairly common ignorance about how minorities banding together is “racism”…

        “By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” –Ron Paul

        …which is, as I said, common enough that most white people won’t even realize how ignorant it is.  But then there’s the more blatant stuff, such as this (taken from a Salon.com article):

        “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”–Ron Paul

        They’re not white, so they don’t look “American” to him.  Rather, they look “suspicious”.  Do they look suspicious because they’re not white, or because, since they’re colored, they don’t look American?  Either one is obviously ridiculous and horribly racist.

        And then you’ve got gems like this: 

        This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Under a section headlined “Terrorist Update,” the following sentence ran, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

        He never retracted any of these statements or comments in his newletters, by the way.  How are these very plain indicators of, at the very least, ignorant ideas about race “mainstream media hype”?

        • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

          I can’t defend his comments…especially the ones taken directly from him…but I should mention that the newsletter article may well have had nothing to do with Mr Paul himself…but rather with one of his slightly unhinged contributors and early fans. The rest does make him look like an idiot though. I may hate the GOP…but I consider the tactic of attributing loosely related quotes and then hanging them on someones name to be a tactic fitting for them to employ…I try to stick to making them eat words that can be exclusively proven to have emerged from their own mouths…and leave the comments of their fanbase attributable only to same.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I know there’s a difference between “things he said” and “things said in his newsletter”, but are we not responsible for the things said in our name?  To my knowledge, he hasn’t retracted that statement.  What reason do I have to think that this isn’t what he really thinks?

        • Alis

          “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more
          suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says.
          “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American
          to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot
          of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of
          anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”–Ron Paul

          I think it’s important to keep in mind that Ron Paul is extremely critical of the TSA, and has lobbied numerous criticisms against the TSA. If this was his most frequently repeated criticism, I would extremely concerned, but I know it’s not. Of all the criticisms of the TSA that can be uttered, this is a weak one, but as someone who’s not remotely racist, pointing out the irony of having people who probably aren’t the smartest and most educated, and are often foreign-born, in charge of citizens’ personal safety in a country where one of the unspoken “anti-terrorism” strategies has been to encourage profiling and suspicion is a salient critique of the mix of contradiction and incompetence that has been such a thorn in the side of the TSA since the get go.

          As for your third example, I think VoxMagi said it best.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Of all the criticisms of the TSA that can be uttered, this is a weak one,… 
            God knows the TSA deserves criticism, but this isn’t even “weak”.  It’s racist and not a valid criticism.

            but as someone who’s not remotely racist, pointing out the irony of having people who probably aren’t the smartest and most educated, and are often foreign-born,…

            Are we even sure that this is the case?  Do you have statistics to back it up?  I do quite a bit of traveling and at no point have I noticed that the TSA workers are “often foreign-born”.  I sincerely doubt there is even a significant minority of foreign born TSA workers.  Ron Paul’s criticism is that they don’t “look” American, not that they aren’t American.  There is no defense for this kind of thinking, and I’m frankly shocked that you’re trying to defend it.  

          • Alis

            First of all, despite your interesting focus on reducing his comment to an issue of “color” alone, Ron Paul’s criticism touches more than how, in HIS experience, TSA agents “look”. In his quote, he says, “I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly”. So, it’s reasonable to deduce that, despite your own experience, Ron Paul may have encountered a significant number of TSA agents who, in truth, don’t speak English very well. Now, why he thinks they don’t speak English very well is another question. I’ve met very few people born in this country with little education to speak of, who are at the same time intellectually qualified to work a job like being a TSA agent (however menial) who could “hardly” speak English well, so I also think it’s reasonable to assume that Ron Paul is suggesting that the people in question were, indeed, foreign-born or otherwise spoke with heavy accents (or at least not jumping to conclusions by entertaining the possibility). Does that mean they’re not “very American”? No, but he’s simply saying they don’t appear “very American” to him for a number of reasons, and I wouldn’t doubt that such a comment could in part be attributable to his old-time southern conservative Christian upbringing, something I would imagine he has in common with a number of southern politicians. Is that misguided and unnecessary? I can see why many would think so, but do I think that a prime example of blatant and utter racism of the kind you seem to think it is? Not at all. With that said, Ron Paul has been in politics for a long time, and I personally think the fact that so few examples of this purported “racism” so far exist is a testament to just how relatively clean he’s been over the years. I think the way you focused on reducing his comment to a simple matter of “color”, and ostensibly disregarding the above possibility of his own experience with TSA agents as different from your own, however traveled you may be, is symptomatic of blowing a questionable comment out of proportion and jumping to conclusions.

            Oh, and although I couldn’t find statistics on the the number of immigrants that work as TSA screeners, the very same article that this quote seems to have originated from prefaced the quote in question with this: “Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA
            screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants.”

            http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

  • DITM

    Mainly because there’s sod all evidence for Ron Paul being racist and it was all mainstream media hype.  I still say non-republicans need to vote in open primaries (or register republican for the closed ones) to push Paul through. If we keep pretending that all republicans are the same, and end up with Rick Perry 2012 because of it, then we’ve only ourselves to blame.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-OConnell/22701398 Alex O’Connell

    Look, I certainly agree with you on Paul’s positive merits, especially, as you mention as concerns “defense” spending and perpetual war. And moreover, furthermore (being a far-left libertarian/”collectivist anarchist”), I’d certainly be the first to agree that Capital-B Big Government and sprawling bureaucracy — especially within the context of an (ostensible) constitutional republic functioning on a (fundamentally politically alienating) scale of hundreds-of-millions — is a categorical, irrefutable enemy of the sovereign citizen (to say nothing, of course, of the stateless free spirit).

    HOWEVER. Down this road lurks a dangerous, /incredibly/ dangerous misunderstanding. Yes, that Large Government is an enemy to the free man is of course is a platitude, a given. But nevertheless, I’m unhappy to say, it is NOT, it is FAR from not, the more profound enemy we confront. Corporate power (…i.e. electoral power, lobbying/special-interest power, economic power, etc etc, ad nauseam) is, unfortunately, BY FAR the greatest enemy of the free man today. Even worse, though it sickens me to admit, is the fact that no matter to what extent I despise Big Government’s mores/tenets, and indeed, EVEN if every single CRITICAL right-libertarian reform (return to grounded currency; end to the War on Drugs; end to “policing of the world”) was impossibly dangled like candy before my eyes — I still, in good conscience, could not vote for RP. Don’t get me wrong; I like the guy immensely, I’ve followed him for years, I would love to share a drink with him. But there is, today, an unprecedentedly dire enemy to social/intellectual freedom today; and unfortunately, although Government is (once again) a clear and present danger to the freedom of man: it is unfortunately also the LAST WEAPON WE HAVE LEFT. Corporate power has all but won, having established its (nearly a-historical) “perpetual present” ; and insofar as Government itself continues to be abjectly “bought”, we’re already dead in the water. In short — unfortunately, we are at a critical impasse where we NEED to be able to differentiate CLEARLY between our abstract ideological enemies and our profound and dangerous ones. In every election, every interview, there should be only one (or at least, only one peaceful) question in our minds: how likely are they to push against the current corporate oligarchy? Do they TRULY understand the importance of campaign finance reform? What are their campaign financing ties? Etc etc. Doing away with Big Government is a dire necessity, yes — but to abandon everything at this moment might be to abandon one of our last chances at effectively halting the advance of the most dangerous *(and by law amoral) enemy of them all.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Mainly because there’s sod all evidence for Ron Paul being racist and it was all mainstream media hype.

    Sure, unless you count, y’know, things he has said.  To people.  People who then wrote them down.  

    First you’ve got your fairly common ignorance about how minorities banding together is “racism”…

    “By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” –Ron Paul

    …which is, as I said, common enough that most white people won’t even realize how ignorant it is.  But then there’s the more blatant stuff, such as this (taken from a Salon.com article):

    “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”–Ron Paul

    They’re not white, so they don’t look “American” to him.  Rather, they look “suspicious”.  Do they look suspicious because they’re not white, or because, since they’re colored, they don’t look American?  Either is, obviously, ridiculous and horribly racist.

    And then you’ve got gems like this: 

    This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Under a section headlined “Terrorist Update,” the following sentence ran, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

    He never retracted any of these statements or comments in his newletters, by the way.  How are these very plain indicators of, at the very least, ignorant ideas about race “mainstream media hype”?

  • Tuna Ghost

    I am also a bit fearful of Rick Perry, mainly due to his Bilderberg connections.

    I don’t particularly care about the Bildebergs or who is involved with the group, but I’m also fearful of Rick Perry.  Primarily because he advocates prayer as a viable solution to the outrageous economic situation in the US and a host of other problems whose solutions are, while difficult, definitely not in the realm of Big Poppa In The Sky.  

    Also because I’m understandably suspicious of Conservative Christians from Texas.  That last one was a bit of a doozy.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    I’m not a libertarian, but I do know that our foreign policy and spending are fucked, and shit like the Patriot Act is just as mephitic.

    Agreed.  Ron Paul frustrates the shit out of me, though.  He’s got his head on straighter than most of the other candidates when it comes to things like Iran and the outrageous spending on defense; he’s not spitting out the bullshit about how social security and medicare/medicaid are causing the massive debt, he knows the vast majority of it comes from the Defense budget.  I also don’t think his ideas about foreign policy are as isolationist as others make them out to be.  And he’s willing to stand behind ideas that are considered extreme by the mainstream media, which I think shows conviction.

    But.  But but but.  Then you run into his anti-gay and anti-abortion stances.  The anti-abortion stuff I can forgive, I suppose.  Its a common enough misconception that a fetus is a person, and he’s definitely old school when it comes to stuff like that.  I don’t like it and I certainly don’t like his ideas on Roe vs Wade, but I can forgive it.  What I can’t forgive is his stance on homosexuality, it limits human rights and is unforgivable.  His plan to leave it up to the states to decide gay rights is basically giving a free pass to governors who want to be able to discriminate against gays.  There’s a reason why civil rights eventually became Federal business; its because states shouldn’t have the option to openly practice discrimination.  There’s no ideology worth protecting at the cost of basic human or civil rights.  And then you’ve got his frankly nutty ideas on the gold standard.  There’s a reason the world moved to a more virtual economy.  As one has to do is look at the huge problems that arose in the Mercantile Era to see why switching to a gold standard would be a silly thing to do.  

    Even if you ignore all those things, you’re still left with his blatant racism, evidence of which I provided in another comment.  

  • Anonymous

    I’m gay, and one of my other gay friends is a huge Ron Paul supporter. I told him about his stance on gays, and he’s all 

    “BUT BUT BUT STATE’S RIGHTS!”

    which really is just missing the point. Is this how and why black republicans can exist? They just cherry pick the stuff they like and ignore the rest? Because I can’t think of any other explanation besides growing them in a petri dish. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=776324551 Nick Gaerlan

    personally, i think we traded awareness of class inequity and distribution of wealth for a focus on civil rights in the 1970′s. from there we became less engaged with economic and foreign policy and obsessed with morality and ‘values’. i don’t care if he’s a racist or a bigot, as long as his ideas on the more important things are right. i admit i don’t know a lot about him though, so i’ll go read up.

  • Nunzio X

    Interesting comments.

    But in the end, WGAF? Those who bother to vote are voting to see who crashes the Titanic into the iceberg, and how fast the “ship” is travelling when it meets the ‘berg.

    The GOP will do it faster than the Dems, but there’s not a lot of difference between “full ahead” and “half ahead.” In collisions between “ships” and “icebergs,” ships always lose.

  • Nunzio X

    Interesting comments.

    But in the end, WGAF? Those who bother to vote are voting to see who crashes the Titanic into the iceberg, and how fast the “ship” is travelling when it meets the ‘berg.

    The GOP will do it faster than the Dems, but there’s not a lot of difference between “full ahead” and “half ahead.” In collisions between “ships” and “icebergs,” ships always lose.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I can’t defend his comments…especially the ones taken directly from him…but I should mention that the newsletter article may well have had nothing to do with Mr Paul himself…but rather with one of his slightly unhinged contributors and early fans. The rest does make him look like an idiot though. I may hate the GOP…but I consider the tactic of attributing loosely related quotes and then hanging them on someones name to be a tactic fitting for them to employ…I try to stick to making them eat words that can be exclusively proven to have emerged from their own mouths…and leave the comments of their fanbase attributable only to same.

  • Tuna Ghost

    …which really is just missing the point.

    YES.  Yes, this.  Missing the point.  Yes.  Every time I talk to my Ron Paul supporting friends, I end up banging my head against a wall for the better part of an hour.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    …which really is just missing the point.

    YES.  Yes, this.  Missing the point.  Yes.  Every time I talk to my Ron Paul supporting friends, I end up banging my head against a wall for the better part of an hour.  

  • Wanooski

    Picking up speed like a runaway train.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Picking up speed like a runaway train.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    I think this is one of those situations where we shouldn’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good.

    I adore Thomas Jefferson. But I recognize that he not only owned slaves and was clearly a racist. he also raped at least one of these slaves. When she can’t say no, it’s definitely rape.

    But Jefferson did other things which were admirable. Do we reject all the good things because they have the same source as some bad things?

    Paul is a product of his time, just like any other person.  

    70 years ago when Paul was a kid, he would have been in an overtly racist and homophobic environment no matter where he lived in the United States. It’s pretty difficult to heap moral culpability on him for internalizing some of the values of those around him.

    Can we accept his baggage, given the rest of his message?

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    Good points. You’re clearly almost as zealously anti-corporate as I am.

    I don’t agree that Big Govt is the last weapon we have against corporations. I’ll agree that it’s a weapon, but we may disagree on who actually has their hand already on it.

    We’ve already lost the fight for control of the Federal govt to corporations. We may be able to rally at some later time and take it back, but the money is firmly in control right now.

    There are other things we can do though to bring down corps. Some clever, some ugly. Some lawful, some just merely legal, and some … well it’s best not to speak of those things.

  • Theoriginalct

    I am sooooo a black middle classed liberal type.  I also find that being able to sacrifice personal comforts for national longevity to maintain my end of a social contract, which has frequently been renigged on by the other side, good business. I heard Ron with my own two ears,
    “Gov has no right telling white people that they have to allow blacks to enter their establishments(or words to that effect).”
     If , for the good of…NO, the survival of this country depends on people like me having enough common sense and a clear expectations as to the evolution of our society, then I find it totally practical to disregard the arguments of people who lack the ability to understand, and therefore debate subjects in an objective manner.
      The spirit of public service has been degraded to the point that we have”crab in the barrel” syndrome.
      I wholly disapprove of gay guy stuff. But I fing most gay people that I met to be of higher integrity and morals many of my straight friends. and a lot more fun to boot!  You gay dudes don’t get it though. Regardless of Rons personal desires (which may be to exterminatye all blacks and gays [not]), he understands that this is a Republic.Not a Democracy. No one else seems to. For, in a Republic, Ron needs gay guys to be free, black guys to be free, abortionists and muslims also. He has said before,
     “No one has a right to tell people who to marry. That is not an argument for the Federal gov. HOWEVER, if the people in certain areas (states) develope such an animosity towards it that they choose to combat it legally, this is their constitutional right.” 
      Regardless of personal desires, how can you not trust this guy? I would so be willing to trade my right to declare extra BLACKNESS or extra GAYNESS or EXTRA ABORTIONS for the 30% in income tax that Halliiburton is bleeding me for.
    OMG; WE’RE SOL.

  • Theoriginalct

    I am sooooo a black middle classed liberal type.  I also find that being able to sacrifice personal comforts for national longevity to maintain my end of a social contract, which has frequently been renigged on by the other side, good business. I heard Ron with my own two ears,
    “Gov has no right telling white people that they have to allow blacks to enter their establishments(or words to that effect).”
     If , for the good of…NO, the survival of this country depends on people like me having enough common sense and a clear expectations as to the evolution of our society, then I find it totally practical to disregard the arguments of people who lack the ability to understand, and therefore debate subjects in an objective manner.
      The spirit of public service has been degraded to the point that we have”crab in the barrel” syndrome.
      I wholly disapprove of gay guy stuff. But I fing most gay people that I met to be of higher integrity and morals many of my straight friends. and a lot more fun to boot!  You gay dudes don’t get it though. Regardless of Rons personal desires (which may be to exterminatye all blacks and gays [not]), he understands that this is a Republic.Not a Democracy. No one else seems to. For, in a Republic, Ron needs gay guys to be free, black guys to be free, abortionists and muslims also. He has said before,
     “No one has a right to tell people who to marry. That is not an argument for the Federal gov. HOWEVER, if the people in certain areas (states) develope such an animosity towards it that they choose to combat it legally, this is their constitutional right.” 
      Regardless of personal desires, how can you not trust this guy? I would so be willing to trade my right to declare extra BLACKNESS or extra GAYNESS or EXTRA ABORTIONS for the 30% in income tax that Halliiburton is bleeding me for.
    OMG; WE’RE SOL.

  • Theoriginalct

    I am sooooo a black middle classed liberal type.  I also find that being able to sacrifice personal comforts for national longevity to maintain my end of a social contract, which has frequently been renigged on by the other side, good business. I heard Ron with my own two ears,
    “Gov has no right telling white people that they have to allow blacks to enter their establishments(or words to that effect).”
     If , for the good of…NO, the survival of this country depends on people like me having enough common sense and a clear expectations as to the evolution of our society, then I find it totally practical to disregard the arguments of people who lack the ability to understand, and therefore debate subjects in an objective manner.
      The spirit of public service has been degraded to the point that we have”crab in the barrel” syndrome.
      I wholly disapprove of gay guy stuff. But I fing most gay people that I met to be of higher integrity and morals many of my straight friends. and a lot more fun to boot!  You gay dudes don’t get it though. Regardless of Rons personal desires (which may be to exterminatye all blacks and gays [not]), he understands that this is a Republic.Not a Democracy. No one else seems to. For, in a Republic, Ron needs gay guys to be free, black guys to be free, abortionists and muslims also. He has said before,
     “No one has a right to tell people who to marry. That is not an argument for the Federal gov. HOWEVER, if the people in certain areas (states) develope such an animosity towards it that they choose to combat it legally, this is their constitutional right.” 
      Regardless of personal desires, how can you not trust this guy? I would so be willing to trade my right to declare extra BLACKNESS or extra GAYNESS or EXTRA ABORTIONS for the 30% in income tax that Halliiburton is bleeding me for.
    OMG; WE’RE SOL.

  • Wanooski

    You do gotta ask the question of who really controls the government, and it is clearly private interests, held in general by corporations. They seem to have a firm grip on that particular stick. They also have a general monopoly on the news and entertainment media. There are almost no legitimate(meaning legal) means to fight against them at this point. All that is left is the fermenting of a resistance movement(both radical and otherwise), and the encouragement of deliberate forms of sabotage.

  • Wanooski

    You do gotta ask the question of who really controls the government, and it is clearly private interests, held in general by corporations. They seem to have a firm grip on that particular stick. They also have a general monopoly on the news and entertainment media. There are almost no legitimate(meaning legal) means to fight against them at this point. All that is left is the fermenting of a resistance movement(both radical and otherwise), and the encouragement of deliberate forms of sabotage.

  • Wanooski

    You do gotta ask the question of who really controls the government, and it is clearly private interests, held in general by corporations. They seem to have a firm grip on that particular stick. They also have a general monopoly on the news and entertainment media. There are almost no legitimate(meaning legal) means to fight against them at this point. All that is left is the fermenting of a resistance movement(both radical and otherwise), and the encouragement of deliberate forms of sabotage.

  • GORP

    I’m gay as well and support your friend and Ron Paul.  I think your friend is spot on.  RP is trying to give us back our original constitution.  Where freedom and liberty reigns for all. 

    Why let the U.S. Gov’t dictate policy for everything.  That scares the hell out of me and it is quite frankly a dictatorship. The government is there to protect us (supposedly) only from foreign enemies.  Look how big gov’t is now!   We are a complete nanny state/country!  

    If I don’t like a state’s policy, I can move to one that is more tolerable for me.

  • Alis

    “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more
    suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says.
    “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American
    to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot
    of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of
    anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”–Ron Paul

    I think it’s important to keep in mind that Ron Paul is extremely critical of the TSA, and has lobbied numerous criticisms against the TSA. If this was his most frequently repeated criticism, I would extremely concerned, but I know it’s not. Of all the criticisms of the TSA that can be uttered, this is a weak one, but as someone who’s not remotely racist, pointing out the irony of having people who probably aren’t the smartest and most educated, and are often foreign-born, in charge of citizens’ personal safety in a country where one of the unspoken “anti-terrorism” strategies has been to encourage profiling and suspicion is a salient critique of the mix of contradiction and incompetence that has been such a thorn in the side of the TSA since the get go.

    As for your third example, I think VoxMagi said it best.

  • Alis

    Well, I don’t care much for it either, but politicians are a mixed bag and always will be. As much as I’d love to see a liberal smaller government, greater freedom candidate who also espouses an end to deleterious foreign policy practices, etc, etc. I don’t, and so I have to weigh my options. Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather short-term future of more gay rights. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the former is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Well, I don’t care much for it either, but politicians are a mixed bag and always will be. As much as I’d love to see a liberal smaller government, greater freedom candidate who also espouses an end to deleterious foreign policy practices, etc, etc. I don’t, and so I have to weigh my options. Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather short-term future of more gay rights. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the former is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Well, I don’t care much for it either, but politicians are a mixed bag and always will be. As much as I’d love to see a liberal smaller government, greater freedom candidate who also espouses an end to deleterious foreign policy practices, etc, etc. I don’t, and so I have to weigh my options. Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather short-term future of more gay rights. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that the former is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Correction: Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism
    propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather
    short-term future of more gay rights in exchange for at least some enormous strides in the direction of ending those things. One thing I’m pretty sure of is
    that the latter is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Correction: Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism
    propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather
    short-term future of more gay rights in exchange for at least some enormous strides in the direction of ending those things. One thing I’m pretty sure of is
    that the latter is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Correction: Continue being an instigator of needless wars, a peddler of terrorism
    propaganda, and careless spending, or sacrifice a probably rather
    short-term future of more gay rights in exchange for at least some enormous strides in the direction of ending those things. One thing I’m pretty sure of is
    that the latter is going to save a lot more lives.

  • Alis

    Well, then, Alex, just who would you vote for? I think you make some very valid points, but I also think that more agreeable, even equally palatable candidates are conspicuously absent. Obama certainly hasn’t demonstrated much of an effort to dismantle the corporate stranglehold beyond some delightful rhetoric. Honestly, I’m of the belief that Obama is little more than a slick talking puppet, but if we entertain the idea that he’s honestly working toward challenging corporate power, and that the Republicans are just making it difficult for him, we’re still not getting very far. So, who’s the better choice? Corporations are entrenched in government affairs to such a degree that I think attempting to leverage a corrupt government to purge itself of that very same corruption would be like trying to convince someone to excise their own giant tumor without anesthetic. So, for me, starting by decreasing the size of the govt (you seem to think Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal government altogether) is a viable start. As much as I like Ron Paul, I think the “lesser of two evils” adage is applicable to most politicians, and Ron Paul is no exception. So, for you that leaves the option of abstaining or voting for another candidate.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    Shhhhh!

  • Asdf

    Ron Paul.  I voted for him in 2008.  Wasnt hard.  I looked at McCain and Obama calling each other out.  Best I could tell, they were both lying sacks of $h1t. 

    At least I know without a doubt what to expect with Ron Paul.  The man has conviction, and stands up for what he believes in.  Can’t say that about anyone else in our legislative judicial or executive branches….

    I for one love his plan.  We do not need to police the globe, Wall street is a bunch of damn crooks, and we ought to do something about the FED.

  • Asdf

    Ron Paul.  I voted for him in 2008.  Wasnt hard.  I looked at McCain and Obama calling each other out.  Best I could tell, they were both lying sacks of $h1t. 

    At least I know without a doubt what to expect with Ron Paul.  The man has conviction, and stands up for what he believes in.  Can’t say that about anyone else in our legislative judicial or executive branches….

    I for one love his plan.  We do not need to police the globe, Wall street is a bunch of damn crooks, and we ought to do something about the FED.

  • Wanooski

    I know, I know, but someone has to type it out loud.

  • HumanLiberty

    Um… the only thing Ron PAul has gotten right? He repeatedly predicted our current financial crisis, including the housing bubble, years in advance when everyone else was still partying. Ditto the rise of the surveillance/police state in America. DItto the astronomic rise in metal prices we’re seeing. He has lived by true principle, not political gamesmanship, which is right, whether or not one agrees with his specific ideas.
    He advocates actually living consistently by our constitution, as it was written and made plain in meaning by their  ancillary writings, rather than twisting it to suit any given whim of the day. Without that, kiss goodbye to the bones of our legal structure and the last vestiges of the tragically rare and inestimably precious freedoms we all (or at least mostly) love and all too often take for granted; They will continue to die the death by a thousand cuts. Ron Paul has been, and is, right about a lot. Go Blue Republicans!

    • Anarchy Pony

      So what? Lots of people predicted the financial crisis, and the housing bubble, people were writing about the surveillance state decades ago. The rise in metal prices will likely end up as another bubble. At the end of the day he really is no great shakes. Simply voting in a new president these days will likely accomplish nothing. Even if you did, the private interests and powers behind the scenes still can buy themselves a congress and senate.

  • HumanLiberty

    Um… the only thing Ron PAul has gotten right? He repeatedly predicted our current financial crisis, including the housing bubble, years in advance when everyone else was still partying. Ditto the rise of the surveillance/police state in America. DItto the astronomic rise in metal prices we’re seeing. He has lived by true principle, not political gamesmanship, which is right, whether or not one agrees with his specific ideas.
    He advocates actually living consistently by our constitution, as it was written and made plain in meaning by their  ancillary writings, rather than twisting it to suit any given whim of the day. Without that, kiss goodbye to the bones of our legal structure and the last vestiges of the tragically rare and inestimably precious freedoms we all (or at least mostly) love and all too often take for granted; They will continue to die the death by a thousand cuts. Ron Paul has been, and is, right about a lot. Go Blue Republicans!

  • HumanLiberty

    Um… the only thing Ron PAul has gotten right? He repeatedly predicted our current financial crisis, including the housing bubble, years in advance when everyone else was still partying. Ditto the rise of the surveillance/police state in America. DItto the astronomic rise in metal prices we’re seeing. He has lived by true principle, not political gamesmanship, which is right, whether or not one agrees with his specific ideas.
    He advocates actually living consistently by our constitution, as it was written and made plain in meaning by their  ancillary writings, rather than twisting it to suit any given whim of the day. Without that, kiss goodbye to the bones of our legal structure and the last vestiges of the tragically rare and inestimably precious freedoms we all (or at least mostly) love and all too often take for granted; They will continue to die the death by a thousand cuts. Ron Paul has been, and is, right about a lot. Go Blue Republicans!

  • Wanooski

    So what? Lots of people predicted the financial crisis, and the housing bubble, people were writing about the surveillance state decades ago. The rise in metal prices will likely end up as another bubble. At the end of the day he really is no great shakes. Simply voting in a new president these days will likely accomplish nothing. Even if you did, the private interests and powers behind the scenes still can buy themselves a congress and senate.

  • GORP

    OMG….your a conspiracy theorist!  Go back to GLP or Abovetopsecret.  Fish ghosts scare me.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I suppose that’s the question, innit?  Honestly, if it weren’t for the racism I might be able to get behind Ron Paul.  The anti-homosexual stuff is terrible, but that tide is turning in the US and Paul won’t be able to hold it back.  But that sort of racial prejudice has no business in today’s world, regardless of where it came from.  My parents grew up in the 50′s and they didn’t internalize the prevalent racism of the day, or if they did they checked their ideas as they got older.  Just like we’re going to have to do as we get older.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    RP is trying to give us back our original constitution.  Where freedom and liberty reigns for all. 

    Except for people in states that decide its okay to discriminate based on color or religion, of course.  

    Why let the U.S. Gov’t dictate policy for everything.

    Who said everything?  But there are issues that need to be tackled on a national level, and the Federal government is the one that needs to do that.

    If I don’t like a state’s policy, I can move to one that is more tolerable for me.

    Sure, unless you don’t have the money.  Or a job.  This whole notion of yours is built on the premise that if a state wants to discriminate they should have the right to do so, which is complete bullshit.  There is no ideology worth protecting at the cost of basic human or civil rights.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Of all the criticisms of the TSA that can be uttered, this is a weak one,… 
    God knows the TSA deserves criticism, but this isn’t even “weak”.  It’s racist and not a valid criticism.

    but as someone who’s not remotely racist, pointing out the irony of having people who probably aren’t the smartest and most educated, and are often foreign-born,…

    Are we even sure that this is the case?  Do you have statistics to back it up?  I do quite a bit of traveling and at no point have I noticed that the TSA workers are “often foreign-born”.  I sincerely doubt there is even a significant minority of foreign born TSA workers.  Ron Paul’s criticism is that they don’t “look” American, not that they aren’t American.  There is no defense for this kind of thinking, and I’m frankly shocked that you’re trying to defend it.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    I know there’s a difference between “things he said” and “things said in his newsletter”, but are we not responsible for the things said in our name?  To my knowledge, he hasn’t retracted that statement.  What reason do I have to think that this isn’t what he really thinks?

  • Tuna Ghost

    personally, i think we traded awareness of class inequity and distribution of wealth for a focus on civil rights in the 1970′s.

    This supposes that there is a finite space in the public awareness of issues (if something goes in, something else must be shoved out), something I’m not willing to agree with.  The awareness of these issues may have been focused on more, or the fact that it was a new development may have made it seem that it was a focus issue.  

    i don’t care if he’s a racist or a bigot, as long as his ideas on the more important things are right.

    Easy to say if you’re not affected by racism or bigotry.

  • gorp

    States do discriminate.  Lets see……is it five states now that allow gay marriage?   Also, every state seems to have different qualifiers for unemployment and welfare benefits as well as the right to work states.  The list goes on and on.

    So yes, largely we live in states that discriminate.  I live where I’m comfortable. 

  • Tuna Ghost

    I don’t see the point in comparing qualifiers for unemployment and welfare to discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation.  They’re not the same.  They’re not even similar.  

    As for gay marriage, yes its discrimination and yes its appalling.  I don’t see how giving states more powers to discriminate is moving forward or somehow giving people more liberty.  Once again, why do you think it is?  Why do you think states should have the right to discriminate based on race or color or sexual orientation?  

    I live where I’m comfortable.

    I’m happy for you.  You’re obviously fortunate enough to be able to pick up and move when you’re uncomfortable.  But this isn’t about you, it’s about the significant portion of society that isn’t so fortunate.  

  • Comprep666

    take a look at gary johnson…like ron paul, but minus the anti-gay issue and a little hipper

  • Alis

    First of all, despite your interesting focus on reducing his comment to an issue of “color” alone, Ron Paul’s criticism touches more than how, in HIS experience, TSA agents “look”. In his quote, he says, “I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly”. So, it’s reasonable to deduce that, despite your own experience, Ron Paul may have encountered a significant number of TSA agents who, in truth, don’t speak English very well. Now, why he thinks they don’t speak English very well is another question. I’ve met very few people born in this country with little education to speak of, who are at the same time intellectually qualified to work a job like being a TSA agent (however menial) who could “hardly” speak English well, so I also think it’s reasonable to assume that Ron Paul is suggesting that the people in question were, indeed, foreign-born or otherwise spoke with heavy accents (or at least not jumping to conclusions by entertaining the possibility). Does that mean they’re not “very American”? No, but he’s simply saying they don’t appear “very American” to him for a number of reasons, and I wouldn’t doubt that such a comment could in part be attributable to his old-time southern conservative Christian upbringing, something I would imagine he has in common with a number of southern politicians. Is that misguided and unnecessary? I can see why many would think so, but do I think that a prime example of blatant and utter racism of the kind you seem to think it is? Not at all. With that said, Ron Paul has been in politics for a long time, and I personally think the fact that so few examples of this purported “racism” so far exist is a testament to just how relatively clean he’s been over the years. I think the way you focused on reducing his comment to a simple matter of “color”, and ostensibly disregarding the above possibility of his own experience with TSA agents as different from your own, however traveled you may be, is symptomatic of blowing a questionable comment out of proportion and jumping to conclusions.

    Oh, and although I couldn’t find statistics on the the number of immigrants that work as TSA screeners, the very same article that this quote seems to have originated from prefaced the quote in question with this: “Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA
    screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants.”

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

  • Tuna Ghost

    UPDATE

    Well, Pawlenty is out.  He’s now endorsing Mitt Romney, who unless I’m mistaken is considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

  • Tuna Ghost

    UPDATE

    Well, Pawlenty is out.  He’s now endorsing Mitt Romney, who unless I’m mistaken is considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Romney isn’t insane/stupid enough to be the front runner. 

  • Wanooski

    Romney isn’t insane/stupid enough to be the front runner. 

  • Wanooski

    Romney isn’t insane/stupid enough to be the front runner. 

  • Wanooski

    The government of a democratic or republican society is supposed to be representative of the wills of the populace, a representation of your will, if it is not doing so, why not? Because of infiltration by private interests that run counter to the will of the people. You need to do some more analysis of the situation.  

  • Edfrienz

    I wish Newt Gingrich would pick up some speed.  He should know more than anyone since he has been in the White House.  People says he has to much baggage.  We don ‘t care about his baggage unless it interferes with the running of our country. 

    Obama has taken to many trips on the taxpayers shoulders an has campaigned the entire time in office.  He has left undone a lot of things promised.  He sure as heck shoved his Obamacare down our throats when we were to get insurance like him.  No social security raises and going to cut Medicare.  Lets move this man out of office. 

    What about this situation where he allowed all of this money to be spent.  Is impeachment not justified.

  • Edfrienz

    I wish Newt Gingrich would pick up some speed.  He should know more than anyone since he has been in the White House.  People says he has to much baggage.  We don ‘t care about his baggage unless it interferes with the running of our country. 

    Obama has taken to many trips on the taxpayers shoulders an has campaigned the entire time in office.  He has left undone a lot of things promised.  He sure as heck shoved his Obamacare down our throats when we were to get insurance like him.  No social security raises and going to cut Medicare.  Lets move this man out of office. 

    What about this situation where he allowed all of this money to be spent.  Is impeachment not justified.

21