Hacked Emails Show Closer Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis, Anonymous Claims

johnson1111The hackers group Anonymous has hacked and defaced the website of the American Third Position Party, a Neo-Nazi organization attempting to foment a “white revolution”. Anonymous says emails reveal that Ron Paul regularly holds conference calls with A3P’s board of directors, and that members hold key posts in Ron Paul’s campaign. Is this a smear job based on guilt by association, or outright lies? Or an ugly side of Ron Paul revealed? The International Business Times reports:

Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s meetings and campaigns, according emails hacked by the collective. Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.

“According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors,” read a statement from Anonymous.

Paul’s connections with racist supporters have been highlighted by the media in America. Bill White, a former member of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement, became disillusioned with Paul after a spokesman for the Republican candidate called white supremacy “a small ideology”.

Following the incident, he wrote on a popular white supremacist website: “Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays,” he said. “I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.”

“Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position,” he added.

227 Comments on "Hacked Emails Show Closer Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis, Anonymous Claims"

  1. Anyone can be Anonymous. Such a valued source. Honestly

  2. inb4 butthurt lulz

  3. No citations or links to back up this claim. I think I’ll stick with Ron Paul’s spotless voting record supporting minorities as well as his frequent publicly made statements to the contrary. I heard from an “anonymous” source that the group anonymous are really secret pedophiles, not really LOL! So much for anonymous sources which lack citation having ANY credibility.

    • John Brown | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

      Anyone who wants to repeal the civil rights act and allow for racist discrimination DOES NOT SUPPORT MINORITIES. Way to clutch your white privilege knuckledragger.

      • Well even if Ron Paul is racist, he intends to pardon every non-violent drug offender of all races.  He wants to bring our troops back, no matter what race they are.  He is pro-Palestine (last time I checked Arab people are generally dark skinned).  As a racist he is doing a horrible job.

        • NicePeopleSwallow | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm |


        • Shompydude | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

           He is accused of being an anti-semite, so being anti-israel hardly absolves him. He doesn’t care about the Palestinians, he just doesn’t like his tax money going to Israel. I don’t either, but I think the apartheid is bigger problem than my bank account

        • Would he welcome them into America as his neighbors or would he prefer the Palestinians in their own country?

      • WeThePeople | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:36 pm |

        “Anyone who wants to repeal the civil rights act” But have you ever asked yourself why? Here you go, because apparently you are too lazy to research the question yourself:


        Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today’s race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.”The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities,” he said. “They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there’s a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the

        • WeThePeople | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

          Whoops…that last sentence got cut off:

          “So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don’t ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems.”

        • Does anyone have proof that Ron Paul wants to “repeal the Civil Rights Act”?  Because as far as I can tell, he only was against it.  Has he said he has plans to repeal it?  Even if he tried, which I doubt he would, he’d fail spectacularly (and he knows it).

      • I think real question is: Why do you feel that you need a LAW to tell you not to be racist?  I don’t.  The real “knukledraggers” are people that need to be TOLD how to be a good human being by their primate leaders… That’s the whole point.  Until this is confirmed it’s just another smear attempt in my book.

        • Thank you Peetr.  It won’t be confirmed because it is all to easy to claim “Anonymous” is responsible for “Anything”.  Same way they used “Anonymous” excuse to move the vote tallying in New Hampshire to a “Secret” location for fear of “Hacking” by Anonymous and disruption by “OWS”.   I’m sure they will blame “Anyonymous” for any upcoming cyber crimes and maybe retroactively for Stuxnet. 
          Controlled opposition like WikiLeaks,< Don't leak shit about the FED, 9/11, or anything really that important, huh, go figure!

          Here is Julian Assange, don't question his background, just accept our reality. Same with Obama.  Not manufactured at all!  His parents are definitely NOT connected to the CIA and he is not a puppet of Wall Street!  BECAUSE "WE" SAY SO!  YAY!!!!

          • No one needs anonymous to establish Ron Paul’s positioning –


        • Passing a law doesn’t make anyone do anything. You have the law so people respect one another or they go to jail. You don’t need a law to stop you from doing anything and the law being there dosen’t stop everyone. What it does is make certain actions punishable by law.

        • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:29 am |

          I think real question is: Why do you feel that you need a LAW to tell you not to be racist?  I don’t.  

          I’m happy to hear that, I sincerely am.  Unfortunately, as has been proven time and time again throughout the history of the world, the majority of people do in fact need laws to keep them from violating other people’s human rights.

      • Valentine Joseph | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:16 pm |

        LOL, stop. He repeatedly said that he was for the CRA in terms of repealing the Jim Crow Laws but against forcing private businesses to not discriminate which only leads to a distortion of the market

      • Here is John “Brown” again the champion of Ad hominem and Smear.  Disinfo, haven’t we gone round this bend/bin enough times?  ALL CAPS IGNORANCE!  I WROTE IN ALL CAPS! “I’m” JOE BROWN!

      • Ben Richards | Feb 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm |

        Only a knuckledragger would believe anything Anonymous has to say John Brown.

    • This site is like the onion, but not as funny.  Can’t you tell by the headlines?

    • And spotless record taking a stand against gay marriage and for faith based initiatives to replace public institutions etc… What a guy.

      • Anonymous | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

        He doesn’t care. He believes it’s not up to the Government to decide who gets married. Marriage is a religious matter.

      • …stand about gay marriage on the federal level- and wants to leave it up to states to make decisions for themselves. And we do have public welfare systems because churches failed in the past to be able to provide ALL assistance- there are a lot of faith based charities out there being held-back and limited by the restrictions of the Federal government because of the laws they have to put in place to control their programs.

        States should be able to make the decisions about welfare, charity so on… and have a limited one at the federal level to assist states that need it. That’s what Dr. Paul believes from everything I’ve heard.

        • Shompydude | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm |

          So its okay for the government to take your civil rights as long as its the state and not the fed? What a brave moral stand! I guess Ron Paul must not have a problem with individual states passing gun control laws then, oh wait…hypocrite

        • sonicbphuct | Feb 10, 2012 at 11:21 am |

           just out of curiosity, why are arbitrary lines like the lines that define States better than those that define a country? WTF do I care if the Federal Gov. protects my rights to speech, etc, or the state in which I live? Is there something inherently better at a state level?

          Hell, why not make welfare and charity the dominion of my local block – assuming you’re going in that direction?

    • I believe the source is: http://pirasec.com/

      The source is also a group of computer hackers.

      When did we start trusting hackers? 

      Although, compared to politicians………….

  4. proof or it didn’t happen

  5. RoadtoSurfdom | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

    Release the emails then.

  6. TregLoyden | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

    Well if Ron Paul was a “White racist”, he has the STRANGEST way of going about it — Promoting peace, a colored blind society all based upon Individual Rights to ones own Life, Liberty, and Property (justly & fairly acquired of course).   Ron Paul, unlike Obama, wants to end the Drug War and the Death Pentality, two of the last forms of institutional racism we have left over since Jim Crow laws. Actually, I think the bigotry of those on the Left are showing. They just can’t handle and deal with the fact that here we have an old white man who is more principled civil libertarian Peace advocate than their dear Pres Obama.  Indeed, if Obama did not resign the Patriot Act, did not sign NDAA, did not keep gitmo and the American gulag system in place, kiss Israel’s butt and give the Palestinians the finger, continue Bush’s not so covert war against Iran, and did not keep the Bush Tax Cuts, — then the Left would appear attractive.  But facts are facts.  Obama is GW Bush’s 3rd term.  Rock on old Man Ron Paul… sell your message of small govt and greater liberty for all.

    • Valentine Joseph | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

      LOL, right!

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:19 pm |

      “white racist”

      is there any other kind?

      and “coloured blind society”

      so the repeal of the 1964 civil rights act- works to equalise race relations in context to america’s history of genocide, slavery, and segregation? not quite.

      •  “white racist”

        is there any other kind?

        -Yes in fact, there are lots of black, Jewish, Mexican and Italian racist that I personally have known (And to clarify I have actually KNOWN them not known OF them), and yes of course I have also known white racist. As for the other races idk, haven’t met one that is racist yet, but to assume that ALL racist are white is ignorant.

        It’s not like racism is something that’s only a problem in the States, or the “south”. In fact that’s another thing. The south is not the only place where racism is, what about the Aryan Brotherhood compounds up north in Idaho, or the “whites only” sign that was posted at that swimming pool in Ohio? What about after Katrina racist coming to Louisiana trying to provide help for whites only, and them being run out BY white people saying that if they were not there for everyone then they needed to get the hell out?

        Things are just not as simple as you try to put them. Life is messy and so is racism…

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm |

           No, but the US is built on a history of racism and race inequality, and racism fyi requires the ability to exert your own racial privilege on the ‘other’ in order to oppress them. it is in-built into institutional structures. A black person can be predjudiced against white people, but it’s not on the same scale, nor is it institutional. Personal Anecdotes while discussing race with a PoC, do not make for a qualified or quantified arguement. I certainly am not saying racism is not messy or easily defined, partly my comment was tongue in cheek, but partly it was a provocation. a jest at the absolute ABSURDITY of defining someone as a “white racist” while we are discusssing white nationalism (implying reverse racism and all of the ahistorical arguements it implies).

          •  I don’t know how much of racial hate can come from you exerting your own privilege over another of a different race considering most racism is built on a total fictitious idea.
            Take the white racist sitting in a run down trailer park nearby smugly calling all blacks trash and considering themselves more privileged due to color of skin alone. This is due to no real priviledge by any means, simply a false idea of superiority based on something that they are unable to change.

            As far as the institutionalized racism, I would certainly disagree that it is not taught on the same scale to a black person/child as a white, or any other race. Of course this is all personal experiance not learned by books, I live in the south and was taught racist ideals and rejected them. Oh and I was taught racist ideals from my hispanic family. However, I always fought any racism from my fam and from people I have encountered, and was quite surprised when I started encountering racism from other races. Especially when it came to black people, they can and have been nastier than anything when it comes to this. I still am not a racist and never will be, I just see the world as it is and don’t expect all blacks or whites or w/e to be that way, b/c I have known normal people of all colors as well. Things are what they are and you never know what they are until you give them a chance.

            If Personal Anecdotes don’t amount to a qualified argument than what does exactly?

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 2, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

            I don’t know how much of racial hate can come from you exerting your own privilege over another of a different race considering most racism is built on a total fictitious idea.

            I’m not sure how you’re defining “racial hate”, but racism is, as pointed out, prejudice combined with privilege and power, not simple prejudice.  Racial slurs directed at white people do not have the history of ugliness or, more importantly, a cultural system backing up the prejudice that elicits those slurs.  

          •  Well I suppose you want to wait a hundred yrs to get the backing for racism towards white people?

            We are right now living in a time that has a cultural system backing racism as long as it’s not from a white person, make no mistake there is still a shit load white people do in fact do that is based on simple racism, but it is also easily called out. Not so when it it coming from other sides because of the idea that they are somehow acting out to make up for past open racism from whites.

             I mean, racism is wrong no matter how recent or old it is. I am completely against racism and why does one have to have privileged or powerful to be racist?

            Above all the most common form of racism I see all the time is defined as:
            “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.”

            Hence I said it was all based on a fictitious idea. And it is.

            Take this man for instance, he obviously feels that he has to defend his people from harm and feels the oppression from yrs past, but in the end is just as bad by the statements he makes at the end. And this was right after Katrina so I understand, but fighting racism w/racism just creates a never ending cycle.


          • TregLoyden | Feb 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm |

            Tuna Ghost wrote:  “Racial slurs directed at white people do not have the history of
            ugliness or, more importantly, a cultural system backing up the
            prejudice that elicits those slurs.”    _— May I suggest you simply take a second look at European History?  Its full of white to white racism and a cultural system that backs that prejudiced.   At first glance you may think its simple nationalism among a bunch of similar white people… but you would be wrong.  Racism, as I defined it up above, sprung up all over Europe for thousands of years.  The Italians took Gauls (Germans) as slaves (blues) English as slaves and the “narrow-headed’ Frenchman hated the “round-headed German…  Look deeper, and you will see that historically racism is as common to Man as fleas on a dog. Geneticists can see the groupings today are telling us the genetic side of Human racism.  And I personally suspect racism is to blame for the reason we do not see any other homo species, such as Neanderthal man and several others.   

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 5, 2012 at 12:46 am |

            Ah.  I was unaware you were referring to white on white racism, which at first glance seems like a contradiction in terms.  I’m glad I don’t have to get into the false equivalency bit here.

          • TregLoyden | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:21 am |

             Racism is racism, period.  There is no false equivalency about it.  Look, you and I are chating, why don’t lay on some definitions?   I have defined racism and you have not objected to the definition.  So I was reflecting on our chat and it seem all about “Thought Crime”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR3RzN4EQgE&feature=related

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:43 am |

            There is no false equivalency about it.

            When a person says “whites should only associate, do business with, or help out other whites, and blacks should do the same!  That way we’re equal.”

            That’s a false equivalency.  Segregation, as it was practiced in the US back in the day, was based on a notion of false equivalency.  

      • TregLoyden | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

        Why yes, racists come in all colors and nationalities and sexes.  Being a bleeding heart liberal democrat or a born-again Christian does not exempt you from being a racist. I can see you are in need of a definition:  “Racism is the denigration of person’s ethnic group’s characteristics (real or imagined) for the implied or express purpose of getting or maintaining legal discrimination.”  That is what racism is.  Hitler called Jews cockroaches that should be forced to live apart from the rest – hence racist.  The KKK white supremacist also say blacks are this or that and for that reason, they seek legal discrimination against the black man – hence that is racist.  The Chinese are full of racist histories. In Africa, the Hutus & Tutsi spoke the same language & are genetically very similar, like Koreans & Japanese or Jews & Palestinians. Yet racism raised its ugly head. It began as Hutus degraded the Tutsi as cockroaches and insects to be slaughtered and kicked out in one big racist bloody massacre.  Now I know in today’s PC America, wide and vague definitions are the norm and sadly, very unhelpful. Charles Barkley can say about ice skating, “Brothas don’t skate. Sorry black people just don’t skate”.  This ethnic generality, if found inside the famed RP Newsletters, would be INCORRECTLY called “racist” and used against him in a presidential race (sound familiar?).   Now…by Colored blind society this means that nations laws do not look to color to decide any issue, but instead looks to individual rights of all mankind.  The repeal of the 1964 civil rights act is not needed, what is needed is the ONE plank that reads “public space” to be inside of Private Property needs to be repealed.  Most of all do not make the ASSUMPTION that because you disagree, those you disagree with are “racist”.  This is simple minded and gives one a convenient excuse not to listen.  If you argue for the “right” of the KKK to say what they wish, are you a KKK racist?  No, you are supporting Free Speech, and as a free speech person you know that popular speech needs no protection, its Unpopular speech that needs protection. You are standing up for Free Speech, EVEN SPEECH YOU DO NOT LIKE.  Now in the very same way, libertarians are also standing up for Private Property, even when owners do something with that private property that they themselves DO NOT LIKE.   Now do you get it?  No? Go back and reread this. Now Ron Paul points out that it was government’s own Jim Crow laws that were the problem in the first place. And finally, no Dr Paul is not trying to “equalize race relations”, he is trying to get govt to be color blind on race relations, neither for or against one or the other, but instead, all based upon our equal human Individual rights to Life, Liberty and Property (justly and fairly acquired of course).

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:25 pm |

           Colour blindness is simply a way to white wash history.

          Racism is also institutional and requires Power+ Predjudice+ Privilege.

          It is far more complex than the assertion of reverse racism.

          Property is theft. That is the correct libertarian view, before american homesteaderism.

          • TregLoyden | Feb 3, 2012 at 11:42 pm |

            The taking of private property is theft.  Property in and of itself is not theft, that is the correct libertarian view, there is no other.  Property is a creation of Man, it is what Man does, much like the honey collects pollen & makes beehives, Man makes property, all kinds of property, and in a far more complicated decentralized network.  Moreover, Man naturally trades (reciprocal altruism?) what he finds & makes with his fellow man. I do not recall making the assertion of reverse racism.  Racism is as I defined it and yes it CAN BE institutionalized, such as Jim Crow and Slavery, and requires Power+Bigotry+Violation of Individual Rights. Current institutional Racism in America today is the Drug War and the Death Penalty.  History need not be white washed at all to achieve a color blind legal society, indeed, it requires that we are historically literate.  Marijuana laws came about out of prejudice and fear early 1900s via fear of the Mexicans and blacks sleeping with white woman.  The Chinese used opium and that was soon made illegal.

        • Tuna Ghost | Feb 6, 2012 at 2:03 am |

          You’re comparing free speech and private property in a way that completely misses the point.   The ability to cause harm by free speech is shared equally.  All you need is an opinion and a working mouth.  Speech is very egalitarian that way.  

          Ron Paul’s view of property rights, on the other hand, significantly favors the ethnic majority and would have a much greater impact on minorities.  There’s a reason the Civil Rights Act was created, because people practiced discrimination based on skin color all the damn time.  There was severe inequality in the standard of living between white people and black people as a result.  Removing the Civil Rights Act is equal to giving people permission to discriminate, and simply put most Americans want to live in a country where you have protection against small-minded bigotry in the business world no matter what your skin color is.  That’s actually a rather important part of American culture.  

          There would be real and lasting results of removing the Civil Rights Act, results that favor the ethnic majority and would harm everyone else.  I often find myself telling Paul supporters, slowly, and simply, as if they were a child, that there is no ideology worth infringing upon the right to not be discriminated against based on one’s skin color, religion, or sexuality.  

          • TregLoyden | Feb 6, 2012 at 9:26 pm |

            What are u saying?  “there is no ideology worth infringing upon the right to not be
            discriminated against based on one’s skin color, religion, or sexuality.”

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:42 am |

            People are striving for an ideology on the grounds that it is more in line with the message, literal or otherwise, of our constitution.  This ideology, however, will without doubt cause the infringement of one’s right to not be denied important services based on their skin color, religion, or sexuality.  Thus the ideology is not worth striving for or protecting.

      • Poor Whitey | Feb 3, 2012 at 1:24 am |

        Uh yeah racism isn’t unique to white people. Go Google how well Arabs and blacks play together in Sudan. 

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 3, 2012 at 3:15 am |

          Poor Whitey, racism is not unique to white people, but it certainly is a feature of White America. The situation in the sudan is a horrific crisis that exposes the centuries of colonialist racial hierarchy and land division among ethnic groups via north and south, but please don’t pretend you care about it when you don’t.

          • Jin's Mad | Feb 3, 2012 at 5:38 am |

            That’s quite the assumption but then you seem to have a talent for it.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 3, 2012 at 7:02 am |

            Actually my assumption was that you didn’t understand the situation since it derives directly from Sudan’s colonial past and the way the country was geographically divided under british rule and thus a very poor example of non white racism as euro-colonialism is based upon the hierarchy of race, and western culture as superior to non western indigents. I’m not mad, but i am glad you are;)

      • Do you really think only white people can possibly be racist Jin?

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 6, 2012 at 2:57 am |

          Do YOU really believe i think that?

          Of course not. It was deliberately antagonistic. I do know however, both from experience as a PoC, and as someone who is a grad student in a multi-disciplinary field which derives a lot from Ethnic studies, that racism inherently requires structural (institutional) support which in the case of the Canada and the US, can only be derived from legastic history of euro-colonialism and domination, and since both of those countries are derived mainly of immigrants (whether by choice or not), it is very telling that we see, historically,systems of oppression against non white groups actually codified into law. Racism, academically, is based on privilege. So of course it’s relationship to sexism, homophobia, misogyny, is incestously close. But in the same way a woman can be gender repressed, a POC can be predjudiced against racial specific groups. The key point here is not to get confused with ethnic nationalism or ethnocentricity both are seperate entities- while worthy of discussion, not parallel to racism.

          • So this is your justification for using blatantly antagonistic racism then?  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm |

            what i said, was not racist.

          • Um, you insinuated that only white people can be racist right?

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm |

            I insinuated white america is the only entity capable of exercising racism against a non white minority. racism is both structural and institutional, which means in-built into the codified laws and documents ( and legal precedents) in the US.

          • “white america”  so do I belong to this monolithic group you imagine because I am white?  Should I warn my black girlfriend?

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:44 pm |

            no, white america refers to the historical and legastic effects of insititutional racism on non white minorities, it is not a cultural or ethnic group which is sort of the point. I can`t be racist (against either myself or) a group without a cultural context.

          • Ok you are losing me in the semantics and I think it’s rather pointless to continue.  You do come off like so many folks I run into at the HSBC’s who having taking a few courses presume to dictate to the world exactly how and why racism exists without first identifying their own racism and issues with race.  It’s akin to a Christian Missionary saving those awful racists “entities” who just dont’ realize they are inherently racist “entities”.  Give me a break kiko.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:47 pm |

            notice the word `entity` in my former post, and if you read carefully you will see i am referring to sociological and cultural practice not a a sociological pop`n.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:46 am |

            No, seeing as how she’s imaginary, she is not in harm’s way.

          • Grasping at straws again are we.   Yeah my girlfriend is imaginary because you have said so.  Facts and Reality have nothing to do with your process of sorting information.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:28 pm |

            racism = privlege + power+ predjudice.

            i’m half ‘white,’ and ‘white’ people regardless of what i say, are not in danger of state oppression (nor historically) based on their race or ethnic group.

            do you SEE the difference?

          • I’m sorry you have erected a strawman again.  I’m not arguing that racism doesn’t occur, I disagreed with your insinuation that only white people are racist.  I know for a fact that isn’t true.  Will you now point to an overly verbose outline of the political structure of racism to tell me my experience is invalid?  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm |

            your experiences are based on being white male and heteronormative in america- it`s not that they are invalid, but in context to racism or gender opppression it`s completely unrepresentative of the subaltern or other voice`s experiences as a PoC in a majority white culture.

          • Oh you mean like when Black cops harass and imprison me, it’s ok because they are not really racist?  In context of racism they are entirely valid.  It goes both way, it’s about individual choices not the monolithic projections you assume constantly.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 pm |

            your points in either of your statements has absolutely no sound context to what we were discussing.

            i have neither the desire nor patience to continue with this discussion either.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 4:02 am |

            the police, as an institution, are definetly “racist” however they are the symbol of codified hierarchichal policies designed to disenfranchise PoCs. Police forces from NYC to Oakland are notoriously racist against people of colour. It doesn’t go both ways, because systemic privilege doesn’t go both ways.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:45 am |

            When a black cop harrass and imprison you, no it is not racist. They are not utilizing a system of institutional racism to do that.  You are, as always, deliberately ignoring the primary thrusts of his argument in favor of glib and banal sound bites.  

    • Shompydude | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm |

      You know who else wants to end the drug war and protect individual property rights? David Duke. He must not be racist either then huh?

      • TregLoyden | Feb 3, 2012 at 11:26 pm |

        Wow your logic is like hillbilly teeth; it has huge gaps!   Say, I bet you like to eat food and wear pants.  Do you know who else likes to eat food and wear pants?  David Duke! Gee, shompydude, you must be a racist!  

        • Tuna Ghost | Feb 6, 2012 at 1:51 am |

          That’s not how his argument goes, buddy.  Your argument was that Paul is not racist because he wants to end the drug war and protect individual property rights.  He provided an example of someone who is racist and wants to do those same things, thus refuting your argument.  As a result, your following comment rather misses the mark.  

          I find that a lot of people here use words like “fallacy” and make vague references to formal logic, but have not actually studied logic in any real way and have mostly misconceptions in regard to fallacies.  

          • TregLoyden | Feb 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm |

            Correlation does not equal Causation, number 1 rule in Logic.  My argument is Ron Paul is not a racist.  Your/his argument is to prove the positive.  Guilt by association is trick that Sean Hanity uses against Obama and his Bill Aryes and Rev Wright associations.  Puke. You are to prove the positive, and to do so requires proof and there has been no proof of that.  Further, as I stated if Ron Paul was a racists, he has a STRANGE way of going about it, ie “Promoting peace, a colored blind society all based upon Individual
            Rights to ones own Life, Liberty, and Property (justly & fairly
            acquired of course).”   Why is it strange?  Because you do not get racism by respecting individual rights.   Further, I added, institutional racism of the Drug War and Death Penalty Doctor Paul is evidence against the racist charge as well.  So is he a racist? Hardly.  Again you do not get racism by respecting individual rights of all. Perhaps we should define our terms.  Racism is the degradation of an ethnic groups (real or imagined) characteristics and using that as a reason for getting or maintaining legal discrimination.    Thus those in the KKK who say black people and jews are this, this, this negative things AND THEREFORE we need laws against them their individual rights,;- illegal to date a white woman, live together, live on one side of town as opposed to another, send them back to Africa, etc …. and so all that is racist.  Same is true in Nazi German:  the Jews are this, this, this AND THEREFORE we need laws against them that take away their individual rights, — illegal to “mix blood” with them, put them into gulags, burn them, etc…..  So to advocate and respect individual rights of all, is NOT A RACIST thing to do.    Now about David Duke, honestly I know nothing about the man and without links I have no idea if David Duke is down with universal equal individual rights like Ron Paul or even into ending the Drug War.   But if Duke is not down with the libertarian principle of individual rights for all it would make Duke no longer a racist, for how could he advocate anything racist?  He may not like certain black people or jews, but then that falls into the catagory of bias or bigotry.  Is he advocating things today that would involve taking away their individual rights?  Again I know nothing about him.   But it would strike me as odd, not as “proof” if Duke was against the drug war and for individual rights..   You perhaps believe in an egalitarian society, so did others who were evil communists such as Stalin and Moa…. and they are “evil” in the sense that they killed murdered and so on violating individual rights all over the place, supposedly to achieve their egalitarian goals.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:39 am |

            Correlation does not equal Causation, number 1 rule in Logic. 

            A.  That is not the number 1 rule in apparently capital “L” Logic.  

            B.  That particular axiom (not rule) has nothing to do with what I wrote, or the argument in general.  Nobody is trying to make that case.  

            Your/his argument is to prove the positive.

            A.  I didn’t have an argument, guy. 

            B.  You don’t get to decide what the other guy, who is offering an argument, is attempting to do.

            Further, as I stated if Ron Paul was a racists, he has a STRANGE way of going about it,

            Yes, and listed in your compilation of reasons Ron Paul would make a strange racist (because the things he does promote happiness or whatever) were the properties “end the drug war” and “protect individual property rights”.  The other guy presented a case in which an avowed racist also has those properties.  In simple terms, even a racist wants to promote happiness.  But what he calls happiness and the minority community call happiness are unfortunately two different things.

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 10, 2012 at 11:29 am |

             actually, you’re wrong – your PROPOSITION is: Ron Paul is not a racist.
            Your ARGUMENT is: he wants to end the drug war and protect Property rights.

            Your arguments do not adequately confront the negative of your proposition – “not a racist”. That the drug war has been used for “racist” ends does not mean it is, in fact, racist. That he wants to protect property rights have absolutely nothing to do with racism.

            Now, i’m not saying he is or he isn’t, i’m simply pointing out, how did you put it, the Hillbilly Teeth in your reasoning.

            I would only ask you this: how are property rights defended when a black woman gets onto a “whites only” bus?

          • TregLoyden | Feb 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

            U ask; “how are property rights defended when a black woman gets onto a “whites only” bus?  
            A:  The question becomes whose bus, city or private? Indeed, private jitneys did not discriminate and got around govt jim crow.   But the real causal answer you seek was govt’s own Jim Crow laws which made city buses follow those govt Jim Crow laws in the first place. The good thing about the Civil Rights Act was getting rid of all govt’s Jim Crow laws.  The problem with CRA as far as libertarians see it, is the one plank which opened the private door into private property and calling it “public space” open for government regulation.   We call that fascism, ie the govt control and regulation of private property to such a degree that private property is just fictional.  The CRA  opens lots of problems by this one plank.  As Rand Paul tried to discuss intellectually with Rachael Maddow, it opens lots of problems, but he was quickly demagogue as some racist; ie she killed the conversation with a insinuation.   Yet Paul is right, we have seen the anti-smokers demand & get govt to make private owners to make half of THEIR restaurant for non-smokers, then later, place smokers outside on the patio, to now no where in “public spaces”.  How about guns?  Here in open carry Arizona, if you do not want patrons carrying inside, can you as the owner say no?  Apparently not according to the CRA and public space being defined inside of a private space.  What I find interesting is this, a lesbian restaurant owner telling a republican anti-gay Senator ‘I won’t serve you, leave MY restaurant’.  The interesting part is the liberal left DEFENDED her RIGHT to do so, thought it was even “great” to give him a taste of discrimination. YT jokes he would rub his toast with his balls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyhsbp-mu4U&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL10BA1EF5A01B96C7.  But the real point here is if this was a born-again christian restaurant owner who is anti-gay who kicked out a Gay Senator, it would be National News about horrific discrimination and CRA being violated.  These Turks don’t seem to get it that they are NOT funny.  Just as if a Young right-wing Christian show host would “joke” about rubbing his balls on a Gay Senators toast would be out of bounds and NOT funny, so to is it the case here.  Unlike liberals, Libertarians will stand up for free speech and private property, both when its repugnant offensive speech and when its repugnant property use.  You say what you want, I may not agree, but I will defend your right to speak, ….and Use your property as you will, I may not agree, but I will defend your right to property.  Abolitionists and libertarians go back a long way in history.  One of the first things they did if give run away slave in the North was a gun, to defend his life and his property.  What property?  As any slave or indentured servant could  tell you, the first property he/she has is his/her mind & body, the second property is the fruits of their labor & risk taking ventures. Just give me freedom and leave me my property, and I will make it in this world.  Take part of the fruit of my labors, and you take part of my life.  Which is to say, ‘respect me as a Man, as a Human Being with individual rights to Life, Liberty & Property like any other. I bow to no man, do me no favors, just keep your property-taking laws away from me’; …. which is why cannot help but admire some of our black American heros like Rosa Parks and many many others before her.  This is why liberals who offer the modern day black Americans or American Indians legalized pity (via affirmative action & the BIA) are really no friend of the Black Man or American Indian.  For more on the American Indian, youtube listen to “Russell Means”.  He says, we are ALL on the Washington Reservation now…. 

          • Thank you Treg.  A cogent examination of the facts of the matter.  

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 10, 2012 at 7:10 pm |

             actually, you didn’t answer the question at all: How are property rights defended when a black woman gets on a whites only bus. Trespass (assuming that to be an analog) on public or private property currently elicits the same response. I’ll ask it again, How, EXACTLY, are property rights defended in the case of a black woman getting onto a bus with the sign that says, “Whites Only”? Further, that was not a cogent examination of the facts.

            Don’t misunderstand me, I appreciate a few of RPs propositions, and his arguments in support of those propositions. Others, not so much. Either way it doesn’t matter, I don’t vote. But I’m truly curious how Paul, (and/or his supporters) explain what happens when a Black gets on a White bus. Seriously – who do the police detain?

          • TregLoyden | Feb 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm |

            How, EXACTLY, are property rights defended in the case of a black woman
            getting onto a bus with the sign that says, “Whites Only”?    

            Let me ask you back this question:  How EXACTLY are property rights defended in the case of a bus driver stepping out side his bus and walking over to the Black woman and sticking his hand into the black woman’s Purse?  The bus driver upon putting his hand into her purse hears the black woman say, “My Family Only!”  

            Get it? 

            To answer you, you must tell us WHOSE bus?  Your bus?  If it is YOUR bus, it is YOUR private Property. If  it is the the bus drivers private bus, its his bus.  If it is a City bus, then all people equally have access to Public Property and Services.

            The right of Private Property is the Right of USE, Right Of Exclusion, & the Right of Disposition see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_%28economics%29 

            What you may have noticed is the property rights and life and liberty of the black woman ( to use your example ) is not violated either by respecting EACH persons individual rights.  Such is the nature of socalled natural individual rights, they make no demand upon anyone else, nor are they “positive claims”- that is they force some for the benefit of others.   

            Hence positive claims, (sometimes called positive rights by FDR and Obama) are flawed in that they make/demand that others give up their right to give to another, thus making slaves of us all.  For Example, lets say Congress passes a law that says all Americans have a right to cheese.  That is, any American can demand of other Americans that they be provided cheese.  Notice that now some Americans will be made slaves to other Americans, in this case cheese makers will be slaves to us all.  The same is true of any other so called “Positive right”, say to health care, food stamps, and if an oil company- an American army to protect your ships and pipelines and overseas oil refineries. 

            Thus, so called Positive Rights are not “rights” at all, but really are CLAIMS or DEMANDS made upon other to force them to provide such things.  That is the difference between the Equal & Natural Individual Rights of all ie your Right to your Life, Liberty and Property (justly and fairly acquired of course).   Natural Individual Rights do not make slaves out of anyone, positive “rights” do make slaves of us all.  
            Nobody knew this as well as the Founding Fathers about the nature of individual rights. Hence the Founding Fathers also know HOW WRONG, morally and otherwise, Slavery was. Indeed, it was the Enlightenment period in history when Mankind was throwing off the shackles of human slavery that had existed since the 10,000 BC, from the Pharaohs of Egypt to the Chinese Emperors, to the Greeks and Romans and right up to the Founding Fathers. But again, unlike all the rest before, the Founding Fathers were libertarians who championed the natural equal right of ALL men, so they certainly KNEW how inherently wrong it was.

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 11, 2012 at 7:44 am |

             the funnel effect ruins the ability to communicate. Grr.

            I appreciate the difference in positive/negative rights/claims, however, my leading question was intended to show how, in Paul’s [aka “the landed Gentrys'”] world, there would be police hauling the black woman off (thus violating her property rights to her own body) – regardless of whose bus it is, the owner has clearly posted a sign – an implicit “Terms of Service”, if you will. Unless the black woman has a sign on her purse saying “MY Family Only”, the police have nothing to do when the bus driver sticks his hand in it.

            Beyond that, access to a purse and access to a bus are stretching the analogy to the breaking point; so, how again are property rights defended? Are the police hauling the black woman off to Jail for violating the owner’s Property Rights, thus denying her her freedom to do with her Corporeal Body as she sees fit, or are they hauling off the Bus’s owner for denying the woman her right to do with her Private Property (her body) as she sees fit?

            this is the analog question I ask Christians: Is your god All mighty? A: Yes. Q. Can your god do anything? A: Yes Q: Can your god create a rock that he can not pick up?

            There is no right answer – it is a failure from the start. My beef isn’t with RP, it’s with Property Rights. Up above, it was simply a correction of terminology and your application of logic.

            There is one thing I like about RP – no other politician generates intellectual discussions that require deep thoughts. Kudo’s to him on that. Now, this thread is dead unless we’re going to write e.e. cummings poems.

      • I  Have friends of all ethnicity who’s property rights should be protected.   The drug war is a farce.  David Duke is not a credit to the human species.  

  7.  The sort of people who are surprised by this at this point, are the sort of people who were surprised by the Khrushchev report. Yes, that’s a heavy handed comparison, I know.

  8. Now, the establishment is using “Anonymous” to spread bad information to discredit Ron Paul.  Well, I am not so stupid to buying into this crap.  The Neo Nazis are already controlling the establishment and current government, why would they want to use Ron Paul?   If the NeoNazis really want to influence, they would probably have better luck with someone like Bush, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum rather than Ron Paul.   Come on, someone with a brain can see through this crap.  Anyone making this allegation better come up with better facts than some names without any backing.  Who is this Bill White character?  I surely can’t rely on what he says as testimony?  What I can RELY on is the actions and words of Ron Paul as testimony to his beliefs and principles for the last 30 years.   I have yet heard of anything Ron Paul said or did that even remotely supporting Neo-Nazism.

    • Yeah, if there’s anything Anonymous is known for, it’s advancing the agenda of “the establishment”.

      • If that’s not sarcasm, watch at how fast reactionary laws are coming into place. Anonymous fits perfectly into the problem action solution paradigm. They want us to be fully identified on the internet tied to real humans. No ability to remain anonymous. Now do you think Anonymous’ hacking spree has changed public and government opinion to favour control, identification systems to prevent such hacks. Even voting protocol has been made more private out of “fear” of anonymous and OWS movement having an effect. So regardless of who Anonymous is… They are helping the establishment much more then those working against it. Much like how the Black Bloc doesn’t really help any of the other protestors. They just help the establishment justify more security theatre.

        • Wrong.  You are just plain wrong.  There is an actual ‘good’ Anonymous, if you would care to listen to their videos, these are NOT simple trouble makers.  However anyone can claim to use the name “Anonymous”, so your situation is perfectly plausible, a government spy agency could use the name.  There are also people who claim to be members of anonymous who are simply stupid pranksters.  The world is not so simple my friend, and thankfully so.

          • Exactly… You’ve admitted I’m right while telling me I’m wrong… Anonymous doesn’t exactly have a membership roster right? So how can you tell the difference between “real” Anonymous and government spy plants going under the name? You can’t… That’s the way it was set up by design… No one should be identified… I never said they were simply trouble makers and I have watched most of there videos. But, given what you’ve said…. Does that change the feeling public has towards the law? Does Anonymous make the world think we should have INCREASED censorship and a lack of privacy? or decreased censorship with lots of privacy…. Clearly if you think Anonymous is like Robin Hood with zero repercussions then YOU are looking at the world so simply.

          • When Anonymous stole millions of credit cards to donate to charity… Who do you think is the victim? Do you think all the credit cards used were refunded? Do you think the credit card company took the full hit? Do you think the charities got to keep the money? Do you think the charities benefited at all? Other then receiving stolen money they probably can’t even keep… This is that same ‘Good’ Anonymous you are speaking of. That they talk about in there videos…. So how will that help privacy on the internet?

  9. In before Anonymous is CIA

  10. I don’t believe anything that come out from Anonymous since there have been rumors they are linked to the NSA and CIA. The establishment doesn’t want him and will do almost anything (lying, cheating, stealing) to stop him… Ron Paul’s voting record stands for itself- along with the many videos from people of minorities whose lives he’s personally touched by being their doctor.
    Also I know a few people who are personal friends with Dr. Paul (some African America, some Hispanic) and they ALL respect him and have nothing bad to say about him… at all.
    People need to listen to his speeches, read his opinions before believing the media… He wants states to have the power to make the voting decisions on things such as civil rights (for all Minorities), abortion, education… so on.. and limited laws at the federal level. HE is not anti-civil rights, he is pro the states being able to have the ability to have a say in the laws.

    • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

      What is the easiest way for the CIA and NSA to discredit a movement? Is it to infiltrate them and then figure out from the inside how to manipulate them to work against their own goals? Or spread the rumour that they have infiltrated them and discredit them with little to no effort?

      And where did these rumours come from? Reliable boards like this? Since we can discredit everyone by claiming association with the CIA and NSA the only thing we can trust is our logic rather than the sources. And logic tells me that Ayn Rand (the one Paul basis everything he believes in on, besides the racism. That last bit’s a joke) is worshipped by the very corporate scumbags that seem to be the root of most of our problems. So is the answer to the root of evil the monster the evil worship or maybe something they fear?

  11. Dane Collins | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

    He could be incredibly racist, and his positions would still benefit minorities (ending the drug war, in particular) more than any other candidate, including our black president, who is on a minority-arresting binge.

  12. “Anonymous” is the biggest joke.   Even if many of the unknown number of members feel like they are doing good, this organization has unequivocally been infiltrated, manipulated and “steered” by the NSA, and CIA to advance political agendas like “tougher cyber security laws.”   Come on people, CNN even had a one hour special dedicated specifically to “Anonymous”  if they were really trying to make a difference for good, they would be ignored, not kept front and centre.

  13. The Establishment is trying to stop a loser who came in last in the past two primaries. Why do they need waste their time? He’s barely polling in the double digits in all of the GOP primary polling and has no chance of winning any major primary, if anything at all. His newsletters are NeoNazi to the core and no one has ever come forward and claimed authorship of them, and Paul signed his name to every single one.

    Why is this story even remotely news?

    • There was a fact check done on the newsletters. The newsletters were going for 25 years with 14 newsletters per month. In all the newsletters written there was a total of 8 news letters that had racist items in them. They have an idea on who wrote them. Ron Paul didn’t actually sign his name on them. It was a copy machine that already had his name engraved on it. Get your story correct and learn about the REAL Ron Paul.

    • Oh King of P, we all know the P stands for Propaganda.  Does it absolve you of your guilt if you admit your shit as part of your name schtick?  A pattern of shills, unfunny and frankly sad. 

  14. Just because someone in a politically irrelevant supremacy group claims in an email to another guy in his same group that he is close to someone doesn’t mean he is. The type of person to be in a supremacy group is the type of delusional personality to also make stuff like this up. There are supposed to be journalistic standards where “close ties” mean more than someone saying they know someone. Obviously here the author isn’t taking a side, simply mentioning the claims, but it would also be good journalism to report that there is no evidence whatsoever of this somewhere in the article.

  15.  But would they marry atheists?

    • Beings that atheists dont believe in a God, then why can’t an atheists just have Joe Schmo marry them for them? If marriage was between the people in love and their creator and who is marrying them then Joe Schmo can marry you. Marriage is between the people that are in love. It isn’t between the people in love and the government.

      • marklar_primus | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:54 pm |

        It is between two people in love and the government as married or unmarried defines the legal status of two individuals in regards to taxes, hospital visitation rights and a host of other legal concerns. Joe Schmoe is not authorized to confer that legal status upon two people whereas the clergy, ship’s captains, and certain government functionaries are.

  16. Aproxalypse | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

    I smell Bullshit.

  17. the REAL Anonymous | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:43 pm |

    don’t i usually end everything with “expect us” ?

  18. i recently had a talk with a very high ranking member of our society. this is exactly what he said he’d do to contain the ron paul situation because his presence is extremely threatening to their group’s agenda.

  19. Investinourftre | Feb 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

    Cite actual proof or there is no story.  Anonymous is not an actual group, as anyone can say they are, it’s a tool.

  20. Let’s face it: Ron Paul has endured a complete media blackout and ad hominem attacks simply because he dares to question the Zionist foreign policy of Washington… ooops… I said ‘Zionist’ I guess I’ll pack my bags now and get ready for the FEMA camp.

    • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm |

      Or, and to be fair I’m just feeding you conspiracy lizard brain here. Maybe Ron Paul is the candidate they created for the fringe. Have him say the things that wil appeal to the Alex Jones crowd rather them them finding their own candidate. All the time also steering them towards the  Ayn Rand version of “libertarianism” (read not real) that is really what most of the elite that control everything actual admire. 

      “Blacking” him out of the media just helps his rep among the tin foil groups.

      • Well ignoring anything else you’ve said, his voting record isn’t exactly cloak and dagger… He votes for the constitution 100% of the time. If that’s his agenda, it’s a great one! Regardless of who’s backing him…

  21. Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

    Those discounting this because of a lack of sources clearly don’t want to find sources. If you actually followed all the things linked you would find links to the emails that mention Paul –


    Sure I guess all those could be fake. A very detailed and well produced fake for sure, but anyway could write things and say they were hacked emails I guess.

    However you also fail to acknowledge all the sources listed in the article related to other connections between Paul and Nazi’s.

    Like pictures of Paul with Neo-Nazi leader Don Black? But yeah I guess he could just be a fan and got his picture taken with Paul and Paul did not know who he was.

    How about the things Bill White (former member of Nazi groups) said about Paul’s support of Nazi’s and about seeing him and Nazi events?

    Ok I guess he could be a CIA plant.

    What about those damned Newsletters uh? Was the CIA planning on smearing Paul all those years ago too and writing things in Paul’s OWN newsletter to be uncovered years down the line?

    I’m sorry but at some point you have to except that this evidence adds up and believing it’s all a smear job against him is a bit too ludicrous. I know you really really want to beLIEve in Paul’s crazy Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalist, neo-fascist libertarian utopia but ignoring the links between extreme right wing economic idealism and extreme right wing racial idealism is naive. 

    Especially when your man seems to have more and more evidence against him every day.

    • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

      You don’t read very well do you? I read the emails and all I see are a bunch of neo-nazis talking ABOUT Ron Paul. Shit, how the hell are Ron Paul’s positions even REMOTELY like that of a neo nazi? Ending central banking, legalizing drugs, allowing competing currencies, and ending wars are not really tenants of Nazism.

      Oh, and the pictures? Really? So Goldman Sachs can buy out the other candidates but if Ron Paul HAPPENS to be in a picture with a neo nazis then all hell breaks loose?

      Our country is fucked.

      • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm |

        Well then you do not read very well and you know very little about the extreme right wing.

        Did you miss all the references to meeting with Paul? Or the emails FROM members of Paul’s campaign?

        Neo-nazi politics are VERY much inline with Ayn Rand libertarianism, outside of the whole racism thing which is wrapped up in it with code words. Like “central banks”, by which they mean Jewish bankers. 

        And like I said, sure they could be fake. And the picture a coincidence, and the newsletter a BIG misunderstanding and just some employees speaking for Paul that said things he doesn’t approve of. But eventually you got to stop convincing yourself that bad luck (the photo), conspiracy (the “fake” emails) and misunderstandings (the newsletters) are conspiring against your guy and except that MAYBE there is some truth to this!

        • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:52 pm |

          “Did you miss all the references to meeting with Paul? Or the emails FROM members of Paul’s campaign?”

          So some neo-nazis and some of Paul’s campaign members are schedueling meetings. And how is Ron Paul at fault with this? Paul has met with various groups of people that are scheduled by people who are paid to do this. So what took place in these meetings? What was said?

          “Neo-nazi politics are VERY much inline with Ayn Rand libertarianism,
          outside of the whole racism thing which is wrapped up in it with code
          words. Like “central banks”, by which they mean Jewish bankers. ”

          Most of the critics of central banking were Jewish economists like Rothbard and Mises. You really need to read a book or two. The only tin foil hat nonsense here is coming from your comments. In fact one of the biggest defenders of central banking (Keynes) was a known anti semite.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

            So some neo-nazis and some of Paul’s campaign members are schedueling meetings. And how is Ron Paul at fault with this?

            For fuck’s sake, guy.  Really?  Members of his campaign are meeting with neo-nazis and you think this does not reflect at all upon Ron Paul or his views?  Buddy.  C’mon.  This is getting silly.

          • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

            So if I became a member of x’s campaign and was a neo nazi this means that the candidate I am claiming to represent is guilty by association?

            Logic > journalism

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:17 pm |

            no, actually it would infer that the candidate whose campaign you joined represents your worldview.

          • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

            Horrible logic. F-

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm |

             Not really, why would one support a candidate whose worldview does NOT parallel your own? f-

          • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm |

            To infiltrate a movement to try and promote your ideas? I mean compared to other candidates, I can’t see why people would find Paul to be their guy? The Neocons are far closer to fascism than a free market capitalist.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:12 pm |

            I would argue that there are some very disturbing parallels between fascism, paleo conservatism, and the free market. The Neo Cons, unquestionably, are a fascist lot, but the free market will inevitably lead to a totalitarian corporate state. Whether that is a new breed of Fascism or something else entirely is purely semantic.

          • TregLoyden | Feb 3, 2012 at 11:59 pm |

            I would love to read that argument.  As I see it, there is no parallels between fascism, paleo conservatism and the free market.   Indeed, there are more than parallels between fascism and socialism and its deep desire to squash the free market. 

          • Logic fail.  How can you prove that the free market will inevitably lead to anything?  Do you believe we currently operate within the bounds of Capitalism or a Free Market truly?  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 6, 2012 at 2:53 am |

            Am I replying to Camron or Dr. Fallacy, or are you him? i am confused, it is not the first time (nor am i by anymeans the first person) i have made this arguement on disinfo. Perhaps check Mr. Willow’s comment history for a very thorough explaination.

          • Mr Willow | Feb 6, 2012 at 3:59 am |

            Hey! Thanks for the shout out!

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 6, 2012 at 5:43 am |

            lol course buddy! it seemed redundant to re-explain something camron and i have exchanged much back&forth on for a longtime, when he could read your much more interesting, fresh, and well-reasoned (less heated) perspective (and one i wholey agree with!)

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 2, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

            Since that is not what’s happened, I’m going to ignore that idiocy on grounds that it is irrelevant.  Back to reality, it apparently must be laid out simply for you that, Yes, attempting to get support from those groups is incriminating for a number of reasons.  

          • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:20 pm |

            Oh you are so silly. Dismissing me with childish banter like “you need to read a book or two” just because we don’t see eye to eye. Let’s be civil, I truly do not intend to offend but engage in  an exchange of ideas.

            Maybe I was a little insulting when I was being facetious by calling people “tin foil hat” types. Apologies for that, I meant that that is how “they” would see those (“us”?) people.
            First of all it is a FACT that many neo-nazi’s talk about Jewish bankers in code. And if you were intimate with the ideals of neo-nazis (outside of Paul of course. Thats another joke), you would be aware that their fear of a left-wing conspiracy trying to bring about a one world government is FULLY inline with the other extreme right wing groups. ESPECIALLY the so called “Libertarians” like Paul.And I am well aware of legitimate concerns around central banking. I’m a big fan of Noam Chomsky myself and he has had many an insightful thing to say about them. And he’s Jewish too. 

            But don’t be mistaken that because some legitimate criticism comes from the likes of Jewish people, that there is not a strong belief by right wing groups that the central banks are ultimately part of a “Jewish conspiracy”. And that they intentionally censor themselves when in “polite” company to say “central bankers” when they mean “Jewish bankers”.

            As for your dismissal of the photo. Please be aware that I was being serious when I said it could be an unlucky coincidence. I claimed no such proof of guilt. What I am saying is their is certainly a considerable amount of “evidence” at this point that Ron Paul has some very real connections to far right wing politics outside of his far right wing economic ideals. Could they all be bad luck and conspiracy against him? Sure they could. Does that seem the most likely truth? I personally do not believe so. 

            And when I see people claiming no sources when there clearly ARE sources, well then I call not wanting to see the sources for what it is.And what tin foil hat nonsense am I expounding here? I have proposed no vast conspiracies or anything of the sort. I am pointing out things that should be decipherable with logic in my opinion. Not barely sourced “facts” or ludicrous conspiracies. Simple logic.It is simply true that the kind of politics Paul support, which is Ayn Rand “libertarianism”. Is also the kind of economic policy that you will find supported by most neo-nazi groups. Neo-Nazi’s have evolved from believing in “National Socialism” to “Isolationist Libertarianism” some time ago. Because let’s be honest, most of them were more attracted to the racism than the economic policies. Not that isolationist-fascism is much different to national-socialism anyway.I’m saying that people don’t want to see the connection. And that’s fair enough. And I am a fan of about 60% of what Paul says too. But I have a philosophy of “knowing my enemy”. And because of this I have read thing like “mein kampf” and some of the works of Ayn Rand along with literature from the likes of Storm Front and tons of right wing conspiracy sites. 

          • First of all it is a FACT that many neo-nazi’s talk about Jewish bankers in code.”

            So what? Does that mean that everyone that talks about bankers is a Neo-Nazi? You need to separate fact from fiction.

            “And if you were intimate with the ideals of neo-nazis (outside of Paul of course. Thats another joke), you would be aware that their fear of a left-wing conspiracy trying to bring about a one world government is FULLY inline with the other extreme right wing groups.”
            That’s because most Neo-Nazi groups that I have seen are Nationalist.. and no they aren’t extreme right-wing groups.. they are left wing especially if you think Fascism and Communism are complete opposites then you are definitely failing in the logic category.

            “ESPECIALLY the so called “Libertarians” like Paul.”
            The fact of the matter is it’s logic. If people are afraid of anarchy then logic states that in order to get rid of anarchy completely since states are in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis one another then it is necessary for a world government. It is that line of reasoning that people who advocate a world government (and you can’t sit back and seriously say that the world isn’t trying to head in that direction. The UN’s member nations are almost all of the world’s countries.. the only problem with the UN is that it has no law-making power and no enforcement of rules that the UN hands down.)

            “And I am well aware of legitimate concerns around central banking. I’m a big fan of Noam Chomsky myself and he has had many an insightful thing to say about them. And he’s Jewish too.”

            And yet here you are trying to do guilt by association by saying that since neo-nazis talk in code about jewish bankers that people who talk about bankers are neo-nazis. That is exactly what you are trying to do with your statement.

            “But don’t be mistaken that because some legitimate criticism comes from the likes of Jewish people, that there is not a strong belief by right wing groups that the central banks are ultimately part of a “Jewish conspiracy”. And that they intentionally censor themselves when in “polite” company to say “central bankers” when they mean “Jewish bankers”.”

            See above.

            ” What I am saying is their is certainly a considerable amount of “evidence” at this point that Ron Paul has some very real connections to far right wing politics outside of his far right wing economic ideals.”

            The fact of the matter is you don’t even know what the right-left paradigm actually is. However, you are correct when you say that he has ‘right-wing’ economic ideals as the ‘right’ wing has the most freedom on such issues (hint: On the far left you have Communism and on the far right you have Anarchy as political ‘Systems’ are chosen by how much freedom there is.’) What considerable amount of “evidence”? Connections to what? People? Please.

            “And when I see people claiming no sources when there clearly ARE sources, well then I call not wanting to see the sources for what it is.And what tin foil hat nonsense am I expounding here?”

            The Tin Foil had phenomena of accepting that everything will be fine after you have seen it all.

             ” I have proposed no vast conspiracies or anything of the sort.”

            You don’t need to propose anything.. your blind acceptance of the clearly evil things that are around you is more than enough to suggest that you are actually insane.

            “Not barely sourced “facts” or ludicrous conspiracies.”

            And yet.. here you are posting about them trying to use them as a form of argument against people who are not saying anything about them. Red herring anyone?

            “Simple logic.It is simply true that the kind of politics Paul support, which is Ayn Rand “libertarianism”. Is also the kind of economic policy that you will find supported by most neo-nazi groups.”

            The fact of the matter is this.. Ayn Rand wasn’t a libertarian.. she broke off with the libertarians back in the 70s and the Objectivists don’t claim to be libertarian either. Also, no, neo-nazi groups do not support the free market at all. It is antithetical to what they believe in which is not the freedom to do what they want with no one bothering them. It’s the freedom to force their ideas onto others which requires the law to do so.

            “Neo-Nazi’s have evolved from believing in “National Socialism” to “Isolationist Libertarianism” some time ago.”

            They haven’t evolved from it at all really. The fact of the matter is they aren’t getting what they want and believe me if they got what they wanted it wouldn’t even be close to libertarianism. Also, ‘Isolationist Libertarianism’ is a contradiction in terms as well.

            “Because let’s be honest, most of them were more attracted to the racism than the economic policies.”

            These groups are little more than social clubs than actual bastions of philosophy.

            “Not that isolationist-fascism is much different to national-socialism anyway.”

            It’s not much different because it’s the same thing. Also you are either an isolationist or you aren’t and the fact of the matter is no country can be isolationist so please drop the unnecessary words.. fascism is identical to national-socialism.

            “I’m saying that people don’t want to see the connection. And that’s fair enough.”

            That’s because the connections that you are making make absolutely no sense.

            “And I am a fan of about 60% of what Paul says too. But I have a philosophy of “knowing my enemy”.”

            And by your logic you must be a Neo-Nazi because you are a fan of what Paul agrees with. Do you see how stupid your argument is yet?

            “And because of this I have read thing like “mein kampf” and some of the works of Ayn Rand along with literature from the likes of Storm Front and tons of right wing conspiracy sites.”

            And yet Ayn Rand isn’t even close to Hitler or Storm front because unlike Nazis, Neo-Nazis or white supremacists.. she is truly on the right and they are on the left. They don’t want less government control for the sake of your freedom they want less government interfering in their lives.. not yours.

            Btw, Here is the left-right paradigm based on Authoritarian to No Authority.

            Communism, Fasicsm/Socialism, Social Democracy, Democracy, Republic, Minarchism, Libertarianism, and finally Anarchy*

            * = Anarchy has it’s own left-right paradigm as well but in relation to having no political rule it is on the ‘far right’ and it is clearly antithetical to Communism.

          • Outside_the_Asylum | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:29 am |

            Your understanding of the political spectrum is laughably simplistic. The right-left axis is based on a great deal more than how much “freedom” a given system has.

            Leftist political ideologies tend view the world in terms of economic and social classes and attempt to prevent imbalances of privilege between those classes. They emphasize public goods and infrastructure, international cooperation and aid, and social welfare programs to alleviate the negative impacts of poverty. At the far left end of the spectrum you have completely nationalized industries and transnational governing bodies (like the “workers’ councils” imagined by Marx) whose authority can trump those of individual nation-states.

            Rightist philosophies typically view the world as composed of familial, national, ethnic, or religious communities, and place a very high premium on loyalty to those communities. They tend to favor a strong military, isolationist politics, unregulated markets and strong property rights. At the extreme right end of the spectrum you tend to have what amounts to government by cartel–the national body breaks down into separate religious, ethnic, and family groups which are loyal mainly to themselves and attempt to accumulate material goods and military power within their own group in order to maintain their status relative to others.

            You appear to have confused this axis with the statist-anarchist axis. Think of the political arena as a graph, with the left-right axis as the horizontal and the statist-anarchist axis as the vertical. A person’s place on the left-right axis is determined by their political priorities, while their place on the up-down axis is determined by the level of force they are willing to apply to carry out those priorities.

             It is perfectly possible to be a right-wing authoritarian–this would mean that you favor a strong central government in which members of your identity group hold key positions, a strong police force to protect your property rights and a strong military/espionage apparatus to prevent your group from being infiltrated or dominated by Others. The classic example is Nazi Germany, which coupled its militaristic  hierarchical order with thriving private industries and paranoid racial politics. A leftist totalitarian state looks like the USSR, in which the state assumed control of all economic production and used its international influence to attempt to foment rebellions in other countries in the name of international workers’ solidarity (which supposedly transcended national allegiance).

            The reason many racist groups identify themselves as anarchists is because they want to break off from the larger social order and form their own militia-based power structure separate from other ethnic, religious, and social groups–a kind of white nationalist mafia, the neighborhood watch crossed with Hitler’s storm troopers. And yes, I hate to say it, but this is a RIGHT-WING ideology–extreme, radical rightist, but rightist nonetheless. The right-wing emphasis on loyalty to tradition, religion, culture, and tribe that in its milder form gives us “family values” candidates and faith-based social service programs can turn extremely ugly if taken to extremes.

          • The difference is simple,  that of private centralism (capitalism) versus public centralism  (communism).  All centralism is reprobate.

        • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

          Correction I meant to say it’s ironic you would claim that I do not read very well when you appear to have not read them at all. 

          You said you read the emails but failed to see the references of meeting with Paul and the emails FROM members of his campaign.

        • Calypso_1 | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:44 pm |

          These emails seem to indicate more of an attempt to co-opt a vanguard movement than showing White Nationalism as being an active force in Paul’s campaign. 
          If a politicial leader has a vision of the future that would involve extreme change for a nation, then being aware of and negotiating with those who might lead and propagate illegitimate ideologies in their own name might not be unwise; especially if those groups are seeking to recruit from your supporters or find inroads into your campaign through financial donations.
          It is rather telling that one of the sources of this information is a disillusioned white supremacist, former Paul supporter, whose ideas were called ‘small’.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm |

             i realise ‘liking’ your comment at this juncture, is opposed to what i have already written on this page, but i can’t help but agree with your logical and formulated arguementation.

            i still maintain White nationalism is a ‘caucus’ of sorts within the paul camp, of whatever potency and size i do not know, but i can certainly imagine them attempting to gain strength by a co-option of a campaign that will lead to drastic social changes (very arguably in their favour),

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

            Thank you.  I was hoping to introduce the notion that political realities are far more nuanced and ambiguous then glassy-eyed Party street warriors want them to be.  Yes, politicians have to contend with ‘caucuses’ of both their own recruitment and those that glom onto them.
            That for me is one of the least appealing aspects of Paul’s campaign – his followers.  At this point my tolerance level is getting close to that of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I do not fault the man or his ideas for this, but instead look at it as more of a social phenomenon regarding the level of political immaturity that exists in America.  In calling it ‘immature’, I do not regard this as derogatory insomuch as ‘in the process of maturing’ for which the system is long overdo. 
            I look forward to the continued political awakening of the nascent youth movements centralized around the ‘Revolution’ and the Occupy groups. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm |

            Yes. absolutely concur. for me -i do love the chase and thrill of provocative writings (as i am sure you know). I do not either fault RP for his politics, but rather the discourse of his own followers surrounding them. If the revolution is due, let us hope the archetype is far more magi than tower- implying of course, occupy/youth in revolt rather than immanent doom/dystopia.

          • TregLoyden | Feb 4, 2012 at 12:08 am |

            While you could “imagine it”, you would still be dreaming. Individual rights base libertarianism goes directly against racism, and as doctor Paul explains, white nationalist racism is another form of collectivism.  You may wish to stop and think deeper about this point. Since you love history, you may find that it certainly correlates well within all socialist/fascist/communist movements — there were plenty of white nationalism in all its ugly forms in all the various countries of Europe.  The Poles vs Latvians, the Germans vs the French, and on and on it went for thousands of years. You may have learned the history as country vs country, but a deeper look will tell you that white national racism -tribalism- was all at its core.  By the way, do you know why we Ron Paul Patriots in the R3VOLution call him “Doctor” Paul and not “Congressman” Paul?   Yes that’s right, given the low esteem we have for all other Congressman, we don’t want to insult the man. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm |

            socialsm is on the opposite spectrum of fascism. basic pol sci 101.

            White Nationalism in America derives from Eurocentric, euro-colonial ideologies on race. But you are also conflating anti-imperialism (revolutionary nationalism) with ‘white nationalism.’ this is a signal that it’s not really worthwhile to discuss with you if you can’t even see the very elementary flaws in your above post.

          • And you derive this from your experience online??  You’re not any where near the Paul campaign and yet you feel you have the ability to weigh into a supposed inner mechanism of incipient “white nationalism”.  Where don’t you see racism afoot of Captain PC?  I’m certain you can “imagine” many things.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm |

            double post.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm |

            something i do not “imagine” is the blatant racism coming from the paul camp and his followers (sic), and their inability to discuss topics with a modicum of critical and broad minded thinking. So this is your truce- to posit my delusion? I love your posturing Camron, it’s becoming hilarious.

          • Where is their blatant racism again?  Oh right, in your posturing, and imagination.  Sorry but you are attacking your own strawman based on spurious “evidence” in a pattern that supports you are more than willing to accuse anyone of racism if it suits your political beliefs.  Here ya go buddy,   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo  Just keep in mind Dr. Paul would fight for your Individual Rights to not be detained under NDAA and for you not to be an Economic $Lave of the Federal Reserve.  Your imagined fight against your strawman is indicative of where your priorities are in life and where your perceptions revolve.  Grow up.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm |

            I don`t dislike dr. paul, or his policies, in fact, if he wasn`t a republican, i would support his presidency (libertarian or independent ticket) based on his rhetoric alone. it`s his followers and their lack of intellectual reasoning i dislike.

          • This is the most ludicrous thing you have said so far.  You are so concerned that  a minute portion of his supposed “followers” might be racist that you wouldn’t support him.  It would probably be impossible for you to support anybody if this is your perspective, because get this, every politician has supporters who are racist obviously.  It doesn’t mean that Dr. Paul is racist or that you shouldn’t support him if you believe in his policies.  It’s akin to saying I will not help this person in a time of need because I know someone who once knew them might be racist.  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 3:55 am |

            i said i wouldn’t support him b/c he is on the REPUBLICAN ticket. does republican spell r-a-c-i-s-t to you? i also said i dislike his followers aversion and/or denial to logic. that being said, i certainly embrace several of his points, and decry others. that is what a democratic citizenship is supposed to do. politicians aren’t saints nor gods.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm |

            we exchanged a truce AFTER this article was posted, so you are revisting an old stomping ground- i`d prefer to start anew- as in a new article, where you can question my suppositions to your heart`s desire. Another thing, i am not your junior , so i do not appreciate your condescension based on age, rank or intellect.

          • I mean grow up in terms of your worldview.  There is more to life than the color of your skin.  You arrogantly presume you are the only person affected because your what half black? I live in an all black neighborhood with a black girlfriend, you don’t see me busting all “black” people as being racist though surely I am subjected to it daily now do you?  In other words I don’t cast judgement based on generalities/sterotypes and you somehow think because you take classes in relating subjects that you are not acting in a racist manner with your deliberately incendiary comments.  Thus you need to grow up.  

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 3:59 am |

            You still don’t understand, black people aren’t afforded white male privilege which america was built on. it is how racism works THROUGH privilege and power. it’s not simple prejudice based on race.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:52 am |

            Jin, buddy, I think you may be casting pearls before swine here.  I engage with Cameron on a regular basis, its not something you want to make a habit of.  Believe me.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 10, 2012 at 2:45 am |

            i do believe you, and i don’t wish to continue with those sort of exchanges ever again, i find it to be unproductive and ridiculous. i’d much rather read, comment on articles, or with people who make intelligent arguments or demonstrate evolving perspectives.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 4:05 am |

            you also need to research the concepts of ‘agency’ and ‘white male privilege.’ and you should really stop being redundant and referring to my maturation (i assume of my worldview). you are not my senior, i do not respect you, i do not acknowledge your own worldview as valid.

          • The “blatant” racism is an unfounded smear.  I think Calypso’s taunt of autoerotic martyrdom was meant for you here. 

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 8, 2012 at 2:51 am |

            ; ) liked that one did you?

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 3:56 am |

            white nationalism is not blatantly racist? what article are we discussing?

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 4:03 am |

            we follow eachother on disqus genius.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm |

             actually what Calypso said and i what i responded with, was not critical of Ron Paul, and I am having difficulty reconciling what your specific issue is- with what either Calypso or I posted.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 7, 2012 at 10:06 pm |

            I am near the Paul campaign in my state  and have been involved in various Libertarian Party campaigns over the past 20 years and I can tell you that I am thoroughly familiar with underlying White Nationalist and National Anarchist currents.  You need to study up on on ‘Entryism’ and the co-opting and manipulation of youth movements.  And if you are unawares of the continuum between Paul and the JBS…nevermind, my hopes for your awakening are grim.

          • Calypso I wasn’t speaking to you.  You again but into my conversations.  How do I know any of what you say is true?  You mean to tell me that you were involved for 20 years in Libertarian Party Campaigns and for some reason now you are on the attack when Ron Paul is gaining momentum for Libertarian views?  Sorry I don’t buy it oh anonymous intruder.  I understand what co option is about.  This thread is an example.  Also you are presenting that anyone associated with JBS is racist.  Sorry again this is “Begging the Question”.  You’ve not proven that JBS is racist nor that hypothetically if you could produce that they were that anyone associated with them is in total lockstep.   Fallacy upon fallacy does not make logical your equations.  As for your hopes for my ‘awakening’, oh you mean my buying your bullshit?  Yep you are right, they are highly unlikely.  Prove you have been involved for 20 years.  Any evidence or should I just take that on your anonymous word as well as the rest of your bs conjecture.  Shady creatures lurking here….

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 8, 2012 at 12:19 am |

            Open forum – hard to comprehend through the myopia of delusional self-reference. 
            I have never in this forum or elsewhere spoken against Ron Paul.  I do however choose to snipe at you, not because of any idea you represent but because of the continued presentation of yourself in a manner that is at best proselytism and worst paranoid, boorish bullying.  I fucking hate proselytes, it is the antithesis of libertarian nature. 
            You make little or no effort to interact in this quirky, humor-filled, theatre of the bizarre that is Disinfo other than pushing an agenda.  You’re quite right that I am a creature of the shadows.  Being one who has nothing to prove is only the beginning of learning to navigate these waters, once you see past the autoerotic path of martyrdom sold to the generational throngs as devotional fodder.   If you can’t stomach shady creatures you best move far, far away from politics – don’t be so quick to think you are one of the pure, the brave, the bearer of Truth’s noble standard.  Little Red books, pocket Constitutions –  Welcome to the Oldest Show on Earth, Signs Following.    

          • Red Herring.  Prove you did any such organizing for the Libertarian party.  I also liked your post “It is rather telling that one of the sources of this information is a disillusioned white supremacist, former Paul supporter, whose ideas were called ‘small’.”  I think you mistook my post written to JIn because it ended up under your post.  But I was replying to Jin.  Your rant about what you think of me was in response to a miscommunication.  If you want to “snipe” go ahead, but I will snipe back dipshit.  Why would you be so “thoroughly” aware of white nationalist undercurrents?? “I am thoroughlyfamiliar with underlying White Nationalist and National Anarchist currents.”  What you a narc or something?  Just a hobby?    How about proving that whole 20 years statement.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 8, 2012 at 1:42 am |

            Christ! You need to work on your ichthyology – can’t tell a pilchard from a bloody codfish.  Never claimed to be an organizer, not in the manner you are referencing …I’ll take “or something”. I will clarify as to not misrepresent that ‘over 20 years’ & ‘various’ is not meant imply continuous or uninterrupted involvement.  There are many other activities I have engaged in during the same time period – I am a devotee of consciousness, not cause. My “it is rather telling…” post was a statement FOR Paul – calling into dispute one of the sources of the ‘leaked’ racist ties using what was clearly stated in the article.  I then went on to present information based on my own experience and offered it as a supposition for others to consider.  You thought wrong.  I mistook nothing in your post or who you were conversing with.  I follow Jin’s posts and he mine.  I used my personal liberty to enter into the conversation.

          • Type area is too small  to respond, see ya next go round. Feel free to define “involved with” and your duration of “involvement” if you like/can.  

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:49 am |

            Calypso, I want to touch your genitals.  In a good way.

      • Tuna Ghost | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:01 pm |

         I read the emails and all I see are a bunch of neo-nazis talking ABOUT Ron Paul.

        So you missed the ones about meeting with him, or the ones from his staff?  Did you actually read them, or just skim?

        Shit, how the hell are Ron Paul’s positions even REMOTELY like that of a neo nazi?

        Repealing the Civil Rights Act, for one.  Saying that members of the TSA “don’t look american” in an interview with Salon, for another.

        So Goldman Sachs can buy out the other candidates but if Ron Paul HAPPENS to be in a picture with a neo nazis then all hell breaks loose?

        Are you serious?  Yes, if you are photographed meeting with a neo-nazi, then you will not be taken very seriously afterwards.  How is that hard to conceptualize?  

        • DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

          “So you missed the ones about meeting with him, or the ones from his staff?  Did you actually read them, or just skim?”

          Many people have met Paul and scheduled meetings. Learn and understand how campaigning works.

          “Repealing the Civil Rights Act, for one.  Saying that members of the TSA
          “don’t look american” in an interview with Salon, for another.”

          Citations please.

          • Lee Swain | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm |

            Oh please. You don’t think people in charge of campaigns don’t make sure the politicians don’t meet with members of Neo-Nazi groups! Yes they meet lot’s of people. However they DO NOT SCHEDULE METTINGS WITH NEO-NAZI’S by accident!

            In these emails it is CLEAR the Paul campaigner is aware who these people are. You simply DO NOT wish to see what is there. Believe they are fake by all means. But you are defending the damning content. If they are fake in order to implicate Paul, then they would not be defendable. 

            And the requests for citation? Why not google it yourself. Both are well sourced.

          • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm |

            If you have a population whose views are inflammatory, racist and fascist, you probably would not want to be known to meet with them. Neither do you maintain links to those groups when their views are not parallel to yours; unless of course they are- which if that is the case- the article is correct…

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 2, 2012 at 10:51 pm |

            He says it here.  Black and white, guy.  


            Campaigning isn’t a complicated thing, ace.  You meet people and hope they’ll support you, usually in terms of financing.  This meeting wasn’t an accident.  If his campaign crew met with them, it was to see about securing some kind of support.  Why ask these guys for support, buddy?  

          • TregLoyden | Feb 4, 2012 at 12:25 am |

            “Why ask these guys for support?”  I think you have that all backwards……As someone who has watched Doctor Paul in action since 1987, I can tell you this, he does not screen who he speaks to, the only question is, “do they want to hear MY message?”  He does not go to people and ask for support, rather it is the other way around. I saw this happen with the investment Gold Bugs, then the 2nd Amendment gun rights groups, then John Birch Society, then the Pro Life groups, the Homeschooling groups and on and on…its always the same message.  And if the ACLU, or the NAACP, or the Hispanic Club of Nevada for example invited Doctor Paul to speak, he would go speak. In fact, he just spoke to the Hispanic group of Nevada for instance and told them that he was not for the DREAM Act (how is that for NOT pandering).  He spoke to Cuban Floridians and told them that he would leave Castro alone and end the trade embargo (how is that for not pandering?)  He has talked with LOTS of people whose views he DOES NOT AGREE WITH, such as Alex Jones and his 9/11 inside job false flag beliefs.  He has talked with on the same stage as Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, but that does not mean he agrees with them.  But when he does agree with someone’s cause, such as Julian Assange Wikileaks, he does so with great force. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A

        • Ok… and if your campaign is primarily funded by Goldman Sachs like Obama, Romney, Bush, Clinton, or anybody else who ever won since JFK got his head blown off, how is it hard to conceptualize that EVERY decision made by the president put there by a bank, will make be in  favour of the banks at the expense of the people!  Yet the sheep flock to the voting booths and praise the very people that are stealing everything you have ever known and loved.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 11, 2012 at 2:30 am |

            Okay, I’m not saying your last sentence isn’t true, but…I…don’t see what this has to do with Ron Paul’s campaign possibly being given support by neo-nazis.  

        • TregLoyden | Feb 4, 2012 at 12:35 am |

          “don’t look American” — yes, as in it looks like Nazi Germany, “Papers please, don’t blame me, I am just doing my job, look I am sorry it ruins your day, look it says you are Jewish so just get in the dam train already or we’ll take you away.”      Of course unlike Doctor Paul, you are not libertarian so you would not get this reference.   You are liberal, so the first thing you think of is “look” in an ethnic physical sense…this is because everything is so hyper sensitive racial with you PC liberals.  Yet step back for a second and realize that for us libertarians, everything is hyper sensitive “Individual Rights”, as in the equal human rights to Life, Liberty, and Private Property, (justly and fairly acquired of course).  The thought of having an American Gestapo and an American Gulag system is very upsetting to us, and it doesn’t look American…… get it? 

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 5, 2012 at 12:53 am |

            I would believe that, even though coming from anyone besides Ron Paul I would call it a huge crock, but he’s nutty enough that this may be the case.  Except, except, except the bit where he claims that they can hardly speak english, which rather points in the other direction.  The bad direction, as in “they don’t look american because of their race”.

            “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.”

            See, that does not at all read like he means “they don’t look american, they look like nazis”.  That is plainly not what he meant in these remarks.

          • TregLoyden | Feb 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

            Tuna Ghost, is there a youtube link to this quote that you provide above “We quadrupled the TSA…..but it’s sort of ironic”.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:48 am |

            Nah, it was a quote from a Salon article that contained an interview with Ron Paul.  I linked to it somewhere on this thread, but its not difficult to find online.

        • I’m sorry but  I took a picture with Ron Paul when he visited Atlanta and he had zero idea of who I was.  All he knew was a friendly seeming person came to hear him speak and he graciously granted me a picture of him. Obviously anyone could conceivably get a picture of Ron Paul and it no way equates with any endorsement of him by whomever that individual might be.  What if I got a picture with you somehow?  Would that mean I endorsed your backwards logic and hackneyed attacks on evidence based conclusions?  Obviously not.    It’s funny Tunay, you like to pretend you are some supposed master  of logic when you fail so miserably at logical discernment,  especially when you have an agenda, whether it be to attack 9/11 truth or now Ron Paul. 

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 6, 2012 at 4:26 am |

            If my aides had been in communication with you and there were plans for me to meet with you, as is apparently the case with Ron Paul according to the emails, then yes, a picture is damning evidence.  I honestly don’t see how you can spin this any other way.  If the emails are legitimate, then there is no way Paul was unaware of who the man in the photo is.  

            Look, either you’re taking the stance that the emails are completely illegitimate–they’re fake or whatever–or members of his campaign staff were in contact with and met with these goons.  In the case of the former, fine, anyone can get a picture with Ron Paul.  In the case of the latter, the picture is obviously more damning.  And since Paul’s camp hasn’t, to my knowledge, made the claim that the emails are complete forgeries, I really don’t see how you can defend him after this.  You’ve proven yourself easily convinced of the most ridiculous ideas, sure, but you’ve not thus far shown any inclination toward defending racists.  I have no respect for your opinions or the methods by which you arrive at them, but I’ve always thought of your motives as more or less in line with mine up to this point.  

          • Again this is all predicated on unsubstantiated slander that you are arguing is convincing evidence (a posteriori).  You then induce that they must disprove said slander from an unconfirmed “anonymous” source or it must in fact be true.  

            Any logical person would suspend their biased desire to smear based on unconfirmed evidence from a “anonymous” source.  They would require more than anonymous assertions.  Especially considering Dr. Paul is serious about Ending War, The Fed, and NDAA/Patriot Act.  Of course bullshit mud like this will be slung.  Of course you will be there to roll in it.
            I have nothing to do with you Tuna.  You’ve spun your way into another fallacy there.  “You’ve proven yourself convinced” blah blah, yeah sure buddy.  You just keep telling yourself that.  Quick question.  Building 7, it came down like the government said right?  That’s still your position?  Try to understand the psychology of projection shill.  

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:31 am |

            So you’re claiming the emails are fake, then?  Fine.  We’ll see.  

            Any logical person would suspend their biased desire to smear based on unconfirmed evidence from a “anonymous” source.

            Funny how its “anonymous” when it disagrees with you, but its Anonymous when they’re agreeing with your stance about 9/11.  Talk about confirmation bias!  When they agree with you, they’re legitimate.  When they disagree, its obviously a conspiracy by the CIA or FBI.  How does anyone take you seriously, friend?

          • When has “anonymous” ever said anything about 9/11? This is a red herring (totally your style)   Also I look at the evidence.  If you brought up an article that made logical sense I would agree with it.  I don’t utilize composition fallacies to make my choices as you imply.  It is you who have confirmation bias as you ignore any information which would make you challenge your inductions.  Namely you can’t imagine that Building 7 didn’t come down just the way NIST tells you it did, no matter how much evidence is presented.  You continue to ignore it and avoid explaining this “miraculous” implosion.  You lose again Tuna.

          • Tuna Ghost | Feb 11, 2012 at 2:27 am |

            This from a guy who, as can be seen in the comment’s section of practically any article on 9/11, will claim “x is impossibe”, then be shown instances of x, and then repeat “x is impossible” as if everyone has forgotten what just happened.  

            protip: when you have to actually tell people “you lose”, you’re not good at argumentative writing.  

          • “When has “anonymous” ever said anything about 9/11? This is a red herring (totally your style)   Also I look at the evidence.  If you brought up an article that made logical sense I would agree with it.  I don’t utilize composition fallacies to make my choices as you imply.  It is you who have confirmation bias as you ignore any information which would make you challenge your inductions.  Namely you can’t imagine that Building 7 didn’t come down just the way NIST tells you it did, no matter how much evidence is presented.  You continue to ignore it and avoid explaining this “miraculous” implosion.  You lose again Tuna.”  

            << This is what I wrote, let's see what you are actually answering or not here.  I asked a question, you avoid providing any evidence so your apriori assumption is unproven.  You are welcome to provide any evidence that "Anonymous" has ever brought forward any information regarding 9/11.  Secondly I would love for you to present that I have seen or agreed with said "evidence". Go ahead and find an example since you claim , that, "you agree with anonymous when they talk about 9/11…".  Again you are utilizing the strawman fallacy and again you have made a claim with ZERO evidence to support it.  You do realize that just by saying things, it doesn't actually make them so right?   Of course you dont't, and you continue to waste people's time refusing to understand this basic tenet of honest conversation and dialectic.    So, please, show some evidence or STFU.  Your hypothetical algebraic dismissal is laughable and absurd,  why don't you assign a value to your terms and see if anything you say actually makes sense?  Go ahead, I'll wait.

            "protip",< wait, do you mean you? HAHAHAHAHA Thanks buddy!!  I love that you consider yourself a "pro" pro at what exactly?  

            Bottom line.  "Anonymous" hasn't said shit about 9/11 Truth.  Even if they have (which they haven't) I have never pointed to them and said YAY go ANONYMOUS as you claim.  (Prove me wrong and provide evidence if you have any)  So your arguing in defense of your strawman rather than just admitting that again you have just made shit up and expect none to be the wiser.

            Stop lying to yourself homey.  It's not a good look.  

  22. Grow some balls, “anonymous”. Until then, shove it. Totally not a credible sources. I’m disappointed in disinfo for posting such disinformation. I should go back to CNN.

  23. DrFallacy | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

    I said Ron Paul is not at fault. Some of the campaigners clearly should be held responsible. But Paul hasn’t done anything wrong. Face it. Libertarianism and anarcho capitalism historically are complete opposites of Nazism. Hitler hated Capitalism and the very ideals of liberty.

    • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:57 am |

      Didn’t see this.  I’m glad that we agree that someone should be held accountable (do you know if anyone has, by the way?  Have the campaign crew members meeting with them been kicked out or fired or disciplined at all?).

  24. If both white racists and lots of non-racists want the end of the federal reserve… Does that make them all racist? Does that mean the non-racists can’t stand for the same view for fear of being a racist? This reminds me of David Icke… I EARNESTLY believe when he speaks he actually is talking about Lizard Men. I also earnestly believe that there is a segment of his fans who are racist thinking this is all code for antisemetism… But how can you truly know if he believes in aliens? or is just a racist speaking in code? With that mindset you start confirming truths based on what is NOT said, not what actually was said. I have NO clue if Ron Paul is racist in private, no one really does. What I do know is that his voting actions are NOT racist. He comes against the war on drugs specifically because of it’s racist implications. Someone who is racist should be PRO racist jailing system, no?

    • Someone who is racist wouldn’t point out the racist injustices both in higher rates of drug charges among blacks and death penalty rates… That really seems like a shitty racist to me :p

  25. The fetishistic love that white power/anti-govt militias have for Paul isn’t under question or even a ‘surprise revelation’. Paul is the default candidate of choice for such thugs…because whether he actively supports them or not…he is the ONLY candidate whose policies would by default loosen the grip of the federal govt on issues of race. Thus, whether Paul himself likes these people or hates them, they flock to his banner and his banner alone.

    I’m willing to admit its a leap of faith to claim that, if these groups support him and there is a record of their supporting him (there is…that isn’t even a question), then Paul himself must automatically be ‘one of them’ body and soul. Personally, I doubt it. I’d chalk up their support…which seems to be the only real link between Paul and these groups…to the fact that they would prosper ever so slightly in a world governed by Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Its important to remember that almost all of these cliques, be they Christian dominionists or white power or anti-fed militants, all hunger for a weaker federal government and more breathing room to build their networks and plot their schemes. They fear and hate all higher common authority…but only because they desire to BE the only authority.

    I’m not a fan of the federal govts actions as a whole…or the direction its taken since being purchased and occupied by unregulated corporate influence (which is 99% of the problem…a problem that cannot be solved by dismantling the few remaining restrictions on corps as part of some libertarian wet dream fantasy land)…but I’d almost rather suffer the current woes than give as much as an accidental inch to such a pack of amoral, douchelapping fucktards. These people (the white power/Xian Dominionist/militia gangsters) are so foul, so hateful, so deviant and wrong…that they make the FEMA camps they fear…sound like a good idea if they would rid the nation of these murderous, worthless maniacs. The world they envision is by far more horrific than all we have seen so far…in fact…its the echo of every failed state throughout history, drenched in blood while millions are displaced by horror and violence in the name whatever cause is at play at the moment. The entire thrust of American govt has been to avoid the fate of European, African and Asian nations 6000 year track record of blood, death, misery and collapse…and these people despise being thwarted in their goal of bringing that hell back to life here.

    In the end, I still refuse to blame Paul for the mania of his worst followers. That said, Paultards remind me of Clinton apologists, and Gingrich apologists, and Bush apologists, and Obama apologists. The cult of personality has taken hold…and as long as the speeches ring in their ears and their blood is pounding with belief in the one true savior…no reality or contradictory info can possibly break into their minds. I’d just like the debate to stick to the complete worthlessness and wild non-realism of Paul’s ideology…instead of sidetracking into a mudslinging contest over his tiny fringe of whacko fanboys and their closets full of Gestapo memorabilia and gay sex toys.

  26. Ed12261973 | Feb 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm |

    Sounds like Anonymous is a bunch of Zionist shills.

  27. blackthorne | Feb 3, 2012 at 12:30 am |

    So is “Anonymous” the name of the group who provided this information or the authors of these emails… where’s the proof?

  28. Tina_hillenburg | Feb 3, 2012 at 3:16 am |

    I’ve just had four Stella’s and a bowl of indica, so all this debate is too intense for me. All I can think of when I visualize Ron Paul, is the scene from “Bruno”, when he he hauls ass out of the hotel room shrieking “He tried to put a hit on me!” LOL

  29. Durruti's Big Fat Column | Feb 3, 2012 at 5:05 am |

     1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has
    sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the
    IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a
    factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would
    limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny
    citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.
    Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and

       2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and
    reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is
    to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To
    provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.”
    This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information
    as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links:
    H.R.2597 and H.R.392 

       3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports
    abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation
    to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal
    devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that
    makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage
    completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would
    “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking
    to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other
    things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide
    the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the
    related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720 

       4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would
    greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly
    submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate
    and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to
    individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit,
    child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for
    working class citizens. Please see this link for more information:
    H.R.05484 Summary 

       5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our
    already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off
    shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands,
    no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts
    that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining
    refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the
    Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water
    Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States
    over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into
    waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the
    environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow
    these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639,
    H.R.5293, and H.R.6936 

       6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the
    negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports
    withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought
    to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational,
    Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to
    keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the
    US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN
    program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all
    participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove
    all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron
    Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental
    ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue
    with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an
    insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the
    US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The
    International Criminal Court is used for, among other things,
    prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891,
    H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154 

       7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and
    would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is
    an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for
    stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person
    marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat
    open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original
    co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among
    other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a
    prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state
    borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he
    would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage.
    Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his
    words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage.
    In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to
    strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.”
    or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the
    expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or
    female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which
    suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is
    unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual. 

       8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s
    loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being
    eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened
    if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on
    personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity
    ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act
    (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns
    to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of
    1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was
    written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking
    around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding
    devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our
    Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing
    changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing
    the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing
    those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun
    issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really,
    common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have
    their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the
    assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please
    view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407,
    H.R.1147, and H.R.3892. 

       9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The
    fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes
    education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think
    our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in
    practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the
    Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or
    administering any national teacher test or method of certification and
    from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that
    fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate
    piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal
    Education assistance in States which require the licensing or
    certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So
    basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and
    if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That
    sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in
    private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
    He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill
    to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family
    life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation
    in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from
    requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because
    of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it
    doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that
    this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a
    court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill
    that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the
    schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul
    is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think? 

      10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This
    reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in
    regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that
    there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions
    and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has
    managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from
    public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron
    Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron
    Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would
    support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e.
    Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to
    strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.”
    or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on
    many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of
    America, exactly what he would do as president.

    • Durruti's Big Fat Column | Feb 3, 2012 at 5:13 am |

      And this…

    • TregLoyden | Feb 4, 2012 at 1:41 am |

      (7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and

      would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is

      an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for

      stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person

      marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat

      open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not.) — This is all true. Ron Paul, a Baptist Christian, has had a tough time squaring that with his voluntarist libertarianism. We in the LGBT Libertarian community have watched and listen to doctor Paul wrestle with this through the years. The only good thing that can be said is that as Ron Paul has aged, its seems his libertarian principles are winning out. Libertarian principles are all built upon the sovereignty of the individual, and so America’s historical “conventional marriage laws” have been seen by libertarians as Government granting special privileges and rights to some groups over others, ie, it discriminates against single people. Thus the libertarian position is that all people, single or not, should enjoy the same rights and privileges. Tax benefits that target heterosexual couples discriminates against single people. Historically government used race to stop people from marriage (a black man and white woman for instance could not marry) and monogamy to stop people from marriage (govt stop Mormon men from legally marrying a second wife). Only in recent years has Ron Paul started to point the way that getting government OUT of the marriage business, with all its special benefits to some and not others, should be eliminated. Which just goes to show, yes the Old Dog Can Learn New Tricks. So we libertarians are please (we think) that Ron Paul has now moved away from his Baptist ideas that marriage is solely between One Man and One Woman. We libertarians believe, and this upsets religious conservatives greatly, that people can love one another and combine in satisfactory relationships in ALL KINDS OF WAYS. The libertarian movement has its share of gay libertarian intellectuals, Justin Raimondo at http://www.antiwar.com being just one of them. Many women in our R3VOLution are bisexual and agnostic. Some are libertine in sexual behavior but most libertarians are not. Back in the 1972, the first presidential candidate on the libertarian ticket was a gay philosophy professor, John Hospers. Mr. Hospers was a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California, is nominated as presidential candidate. Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Tonie Nathan becomes the first woman in U.S. history to receive an electoral vote. Many of the writers over at Reason are openly gay and lesbian as well. Libertarians in the 1960’s were loudly for the adoptions of biracial children to white families, something that at the time many people were loudly against. The principle of “one drop of black blood makes you black” was widely denounced in libertarian circles. These ideas and even ideas of two or more partners with varying sexual preferences was and is widely accepted. The ideas of single adult adoptions, radical at the time, was also supported. The general libertarian consensus is that government, as represented by stuffy sexually naive heterosexual judges, needed to “get out of our houses and bedrooms” and communal property law – government’s excuse to enter – had to be abolished. Indeed, communal property law is government’s linchpin that enters all our private doors. The answer is to rid ourselves of communal property marriage laws. Private property laws for individuals will and does work just fine. The ‘special benefits’ that government grants to those who are “married” should be extended to all single adults.

      (8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s

      loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being

      eroded.) — No he has a natural libertarian obsession with the Right to Self Defense. It may assist you in your understanding of libertarianism that libertarian, like the founding fathers, do not feel we need a Standing Army. Of course many libertarians do think we need a Standing Army today, but the argument is really weak. A well armed populace, like those found in Switzerland where yes, every man over 21 has an gun in his home is a good thing. The common refrain of all dictators from Stalin to Hitler was that peaceful citizens have no rights to guns. We turn that on its head and feel that governments should have no rights to guns. We would like to see the Drug War ended and all such resulting violence ended that naturally arises from making some things contraband. The USA did not have a standing army for many years. After WWII, its standing army never went away. Gun ownership and abolishing our standing armies go hand in hand to decentralize the power relationship between the people and its government. Indeed, we would like to see our nations police without lethal weapons such as guns. Since the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

      We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the

      ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. Ron Paul has been very eloquent on why he votes the way he does. For our liberal sisters not to understand that the second amendment and the demilitarization of our country go hand in hand for the libertarian, is to misunderstand where we are coming from.

      (9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The

      fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes

      education.) — Well after reading your whole statement in number 9 which ends by suggesting that Ron Paul “looks like a pretty bigoted guy, don’t you think?”, I will start with commenting on the last line. No Ron Paul and libertarianism does NOT look bigoted one iota. What you have done here is demagogue the issue by saying that if you do not support our goal of more and more national control and regulation of teachers and what they teach and who is teaching, then you must be a bigot. That is a false choice. Let’s go back to what libertarianism seeks which is a highly decentralized, not CENTRALIZED, hierarchical classist authority structure. Your fears that many pockets of educational diversity would arise and there would be a variety of educational variations across the country are, I would say, realistic fears. But you must STOP and ask yourself, what is the alternative? The alternative is a monolithic one-size-fits-all TOP DOWN educational “system”. While today you MAY think that it would be to YOUR personal benefit, that is YOUR version of history, YOUR special English books taught (Black Like Me, Catcher in the Rye, Tom Sawyer, 1984, Charles Dickens, Moby Dick, etc) and on and on. Yes, it LOOKS that way now. But let’s give you what you want and play a thought experiment with me for a minute. Lets say you do get all of America’s teachers under one universal credentials approval test and the same with national approval for making a school “legitimate” or not. Now imagine that some years down the road America goes into a religious conservative reaction against the liberal top down agenda, but INSTEAD of decentralizing this power structure, they keep it. Yes, most religious conservatives that I know would be very happy to keep it, they would “just change it for the better” you see. They would have the nations teacher test check the box, born-again Christian approved in THEIR understanding of history, in THEIR books, in their understanding of science (which as you know will not include evolution). Acceptable schools and teachers from the NATIONAL approved TOP DOWN process would seek to exclude the teaching of Moby Dick, Tom Sawyer, 1984, and so on. Then where will you be? Let me answer that for you, you will be with us libertarians arguing to take the EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT out of Nation-State certification process…. you would be arguing for a decentralized voluntary educational system and the Status Quo conservatives, having taken over the Dept of Education and the teaching test and licensing and FUNDING will be fighting us libertarian/liberals who want to teach our child what we want to teach. The second road block for liberals on the issue of education is their failure to see that education is a product, a product that is produced by free minds in free markets. Think about that one for a while. Yes this means you must use toleration and be TOLERANT of the wide variety of educational choices out there, just like you use toleration in other areas of your liberal life, so too would you have to use it in the world of Decentralized education. Some parents would no doubt want “Christian-non-gay schools”, others would simply prefer their neighborhood schools to busing, and still others would want “arts schools” and “music schools” and “science schools” and business schools”, etc. But what is most important is that it’s all voluntary and all from the bottom up, not top down, its decentralized and privatized. Black Colleges may stay black or get integrated, that is the “risk” one takes with freedom. Your idea of what a good teacher teaches does not get the force of law, but neither does THEIR IDEA of what a good teacher teaches. That is the deep understanding that Ron Paul has and why he has been a champion of HOMESCHOOLING.

      (10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. … He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.) — This is just highly confused. Ron Paul’s positions like all libertarian positions SEEK a separation of State from Education, Churches, and on down the line. Ron Paul is has been and continues to be 100% against making America a Christian Theocracy base government, which seems to be the very goal of those in the Moral Majority movement. Doctor Ron Paul has been no friend of those in the Moral Majority movement, for that simply notice that they always overlook Ron Paul and choose Mike Huckabee in 2008 and in 2012 Rick Santorum. To lump Ron Paul in with these people is to fail to see what is really going on. Now, one can say “there is a war on Religion” — those that say that are the Moral Majority types who have a problem with secular thought and national ascendency. And one can say “there is a war on Secularism” in America — those that say that are the liberal Left secularist. What they see is attempts to use the powers of centralized government to impose their views, be it teaching the bible in schools, not hiring gay teachers, teaching Intelligent Design and so on. The libertarian and Doctor Ron Paul again wants full government decentralization and tolerance on all sides. The power of the state can always be used for good or for ill, but what you must recognize is your good may be someone else’s ill. Therefore, decentralizing force driven power-structures (think taxes & laws from above) will always necessitate a power struggle for CONTROL of these structures. The appeal of these structures is that once power is gained, your will can be imposed. The wisdom in the libertarian model is that a society should be individual rights voluntary based as possible. So NO, a resounding NO, Ron Paul does NOT want to FORCE his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly the opposite, he’d let freedom ring.

    • TregLoyden | Feb 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm |


      Replying to Durruti’s Big Fat Column attacking Ron Paul (and
      a BIG THANK YOU for this list of 10 real complaints.) 


      THANK  YOU.  These are the real liberal issues that
      liberal/progressives have with Dr Paul and his free market libertarianism.  I THANK YOU again because this list of 10 is
      at least HONEST.  I respect that.  The rest is well, disgusting smearing and
      partisan punditry crap. Haven’t we had enough of that?  In America today we can bounce back and forth
      on the radio or TV to watch and listen to either Right or Left partisan
      punditry crap, and as John Stewart has said to CNN’s Crossfire – “You’re
      hurting us, you’re killing us…you’re are NOT doing us favor when we Americans
      really should be TALKING TO EACH OTHER rather than TALKING PAST  each other for entertainment. 


      So lets talk as a people, not dogmatize the issues and say
      that Doctor Paul he’s a racist, a card carrying kkk, neo nazi who is fooling us
      all by taking about civil rights, ending the wars, and ending the drug wars —
      this racist claims are so over the top it reminds me of what Glenn Beck, Sean
      Hanity and Bill ORielly does all day to Pres Obama ; ie Obama has met with the
      terrorist weatherman underground! Hes not American! He’s a moooslim, He’s a
      socialist (you wish, more like a moderate republican),  he’s a commmmie destroying America!,  he’s for the Palestinians and against Israel
      [we could only wish on that one]).  You
      may also need to stop saying that Ron Paul is a racist when you realize that
      now Sean Hanity and Rush Limbaugh got your back and are making the same smears.
      You see, they so love Newt-Romney that they will use the ‘race card” when
      it suits their purpose too.  Yuck.


      (1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.) —
      Ron Paul, like all libertarians, think all Human Beings have the same equal
      rights, no more and no less than any other. 
      Libertarians hold that we all have equal individual rights to Life,
      Liberty and Private Property (Justly & Fairly acquired of course; hence no
      use of force or fraud).   Thus,
      affirmative action, which seeks to hinder or elevate or aid one ethnic group
      over another works against the color blind principle of equal individual rights
      for all.  So, based upon this, you now can
      see why he would sponsor legislation to get rid of affirmative action.   Next, the IRS is not the property agency to
      investigate private school admitting policies. Nor should the Federal
      governments be involved in regulation of private schools.  Denying citizenship to children of illegals
      ends the practice of anchor babies, a perverse incentive left in the legal INS
      code. The illegal living in the USA is still a legal citizen of their native
      country and can file for citizenship there for their new baby.  If that is not acceptable, we will just have
      to agree to disagree on that one. 


      (2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and
      reproductive rights.)    That is not
      worded correctly, perhaps intentionally. 
      Ron Paul would never ever deny women (or men) control of their own
      bodies or the right to reproduce!  He
      believes in the equal human individual rights of us all. As libertarians, we
      say our bodies are our first property. 
      But yes, I know that is not what was meant.  What you mean is Doctor Paul would deny woman
      (and men) the legal permission to kill a unborn person, ie an abortion.  That is generally true, he would.  Moreover, he says its not for the Federal
      government to decide.  Person-hood is at
      the center of the Roe vs Wade dispute and why those on the Pro Life side agree
      with Doctor Ron Paul. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a privacy issue
      between patient and doctor (which we do not disagree) but then claimed that
      this privacy issue superseded the life of the unborn person, in effect denying
      person-hood by not addressing person-hood. 
      Now if you truly wanted to argue a Pro-Choice position, it would help if
      you knew what the Pro-Life position is first. 
      For few more words on Abortion, please go here:

      Finally, let me ask you, do you really expect a doctor who
      delivered 2000 babies, who is “crazy for babies” to be Pro
      Choice?  Come on, get real.  As he states, it struck him odd that the
      could be sued if when caring for the pregnant woman if he did something to hurt
      or damage or kill the unborn person, yet abortion is legal if she so
      decides.  Now this I am not so sure, but
      I believe that Doctor Paul does make exceptions, (I wish I could find a link
      for you) and that is with cases of rape, incest, and if two doctors agree that
      the health of the woman is at stake and there is no way to save the unborn
      baby. The irony here is that Rick Santorum does not believe in ANY exceptions
      even to this day, yet, he and his wife had to lose an unborn baby through
      abortion to save the life of his wife. 
      Meanwhile, Doctor Paul says that he has never seen such a case in all
      his days delivering babies.  Go figure.  So, the ProLife vs ProChoice divide is a big
      one, it even divides libertarians. Those libertarians at Reason Mag and Cato
      Institute and the Libertarian Party are mostly ProChoice. Those libertarians at
      Lew Rockwell.com and the Mises Institute and the Daily Paul are Pro-Life.  What may be interesting to you is that all
      libertarians agree that you have the right to take your own life, hence Doctor
      Kevorkian is not seen as an evil man by most libertarians.


      (3.Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He
      supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage)  
      — No, it would be BENEFICIAL to the working classes. And Yes, most
      economists also support getting rid of the min wage laws. Now I know that
      sounds evil to you, that is most liberals and progressives.  But try your level best to NOT think or
      suggest that EVIL INTENTIONS are the cause of such thinking.  You know, and I should not have to remind
      you, that most people come to their beliefs with the BEST of INTENTIONS.  So let’s give Ron Paul and all libertarians
      the benefit of the doubt, ok?  We mean
      well. We mean well for “the working class”, and the “middle
      class” and the “poor class” and so on.  I must tell you that as a young economics
      student, I was challenged by what I found, that is, as I reviewed the numbers
      and there are tons of numbers, as I reviewed them it was clear, raising the min
      wage increases unemployment.  Period.
      Lower the min wage or better yet, let it find its own level, its own
      “market rate”, was the optimum solution. Please allow me to go on a
      different direction. Its been my experience that liberal/progressives are good environmentalists,
      that is, they understand that by interfering in natural balancing ecosystem,
      they could cause there to be “too many tigers” or “too many
      deer”.  Free market economics, is a
      lot like that. Interfering causes market dis-allocations.  I think I will leave it there. 


      (4.Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would
      greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. )  —  
      Ron Paul’s tax plan is NOT unfair. 
      The term “unfair” is telling of our differences.  When you come from the place, as Ron Paul and
      libertarians do, that taxation is theft, then to eliminate taxes, specifically
      the income tax, is VERY fair.   Now does
      eliminating the income tax benefit those who are getting stolen from the most?  Yes. 
      This all comes down to the benefits of the open and free market system
      vs the benefits of a government transfer system supper imposed upon it.  The egalitarian might ask, which does the
      best for the most people?   Libertarians
      submit its an wide open free market that does the best for the most
      people.  Do you know long ago around
      1880’s-1930’s intellectual liberals divided over this very issue.  There became two groups.  The liberals that stayed with John
      Locke/Founding Fathers/Adam Smith/Herbert Spencer and the ones that went with
      Marx/Engles and the new ideas of communism/capitalism.  “Capitalism” was a term coined by
      Marx himself I believe. The split was all centered around what was
      “fair”, what was “property”, and what was the long term
      effects of government interference into the free market (good? or a corrupting
      force?).   Most American liberal
      intellectuals dropped Adam Smith and took up Marx.  Those that did not, were very few in number.
      These writers still thought of themselves as liberals, but they were liberals
      without a home.  The conservatives who
      are anti-intellectual an all for conserving the Status Quo became a home of
      sorts, since what these conservatives wanted to conserve was what they
      remembered America to be.  Just like
      today’s conservatives have no real intellectual base other than to argue for
      the status quo.  These liberals wondered
      through the decades of America intellectual life, Isabela Patterson and Rose
      Wilder Lane found new intellectual friends in the 1940’s as German and Austrian
      Jews who believed in the net benefits of the free market had to run from
      Hitler’s Fascism.  These are the
      “Austrian Economists” that Ron Paul talks so much about.  So the American liberals who still held to
      John Locke and Adam Smith joined with these expats from Austria and still hung
      around conservatives, even though they were very aware that they were liberals,
      just not the very popular socialist kind. Indeed, the ideas of socialism so
      completely swept American liberals, that after 4 terms of FDR,  to use the term liberal was simply
      confusing.  Nor could these liberals
      blend into their anti-intellectual conservatives who relied on status quo
      notions and biblical ethics of sorts to determine what was right and just. By
      the 1950’s these liberals where already many new names for themselves and their
      ideas, eventually settling on a new name for themselves,
      “libertarian”. So while we are indeed “libertarians”, what
      we really are is your long lost liberal brothers and you are our long lost but
      never forgotten liberal sisters – which is to say, we are from the same
      family.   We are more than cousins, we
      are brothers and sisters intellectually and like a brother and sister who can
      have a big big disagreement, it is this that we strongly disagree.  Since individual rights are the right to
      one’s own life, liberty, and property (justly & fairly acquired of course),
      then it stands to reason when someone stronger comes along and forcefully takes
      one’s justly and fairly earned property, then a wrong, a crime has been
      committed.   Just as my life’s situation
      (say my child needs leg surgery) does not justify my action of taking all your
      property and selling it on Ebay while you were away at work, so too does
      government’s redistribution scheme justify taking property from me via the
      income tax.   That is where libertarians
      are coming from.  Moreover, they are
      adding to the argument that such a system sets up a Power Hierarchy system of
      which the higher Classes are positioned to exploit to their own advantages. For
      more on Libertarian Class Analysis please go here:  


         (5. Ron Paul’s
      policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained
      environment.)    This again boils down to
      which is a better system of regulation, direct tort law that protects private
      property vs a government agency charged with doing the protecting which we
      contend always gets owned by the special interests of which it’s supposed to be
      regulating. Moreover, the property that is held in common, those properties
      need to be privatized.  There are
      mountains of things to be said here but let me show you a side that you
      probably never hear because (like us) you are busy just talking amongst
      yourselves in an intellectual echo chamber of sorts.  Here it is, we contend that LIBERALS ARE
      Did I get your attention?  Yes
      that is our contention. Liberal concern for wild life is well known, what is
      not known generally is that liberals have had their way with wild life management
      policy and the evidence is quite clear, it is not working, all kinds of wild
      life are barely maintaining their numbers or going extinct.  In Africa liberal policies of having National
      Parks and no private property in wild life (for tribes or individuals) have
      been enforced for 50 some years.  The
      facts are devastating news yet liberal communal lands and communal ownership
      policies are never to blame.  The irony
      is bright and clear.  We Humans kill
      millions of chickens, goats, sheep, horses, dogs, cats, cows and pigs each year
      — yet these species do not go extinct. And we humans kill thousands of
      “wild life” each year, and they DO go extinct. Liberals who don’t get
      the principle of Private Property are making “Wild Life” (non propertied
      animals) go extinct.  The problem as I
      see it is our liberal sisters have a very very limited understanding of what
      private property is.  They see it as land
      with a fence, a very very limited notion to say the least. They need to start
      thinking of private property as … a transformer car.  Unbundled it and it can be made into many
      things. Or think of it as we do, as an infinitely shape-able legal
      structure.  I for one, am UPSET at ALL
      LIBERALS ENVIRONMENTALIST for this very reason – it is they who are causing the
      Extinction of all Wild Life. They nearly exterminated the Florida Alligator
      until it was semi-privatized, and they are busy EXTERMINATING Africa’s
      “WILD LIFE” – non private Property animals, all because they ‘care’?
      No, LIBERALS are flat out Self-Righteous Puritan Zealots despite the evidence
      of their failure. They are killing the world’s animals, all because they REFUSE
      to get the principle of Private Property. From Orangutans, to Chimpanzees, to
      Elephants , to the Rhinos…. they work against tribes in Africa
      “OWNING” THEIR wild life. Instead, they insist upon GOVERNMENT
      COMMUNES for “wild life”. Is it time we start EXTERMINATING LIBERAL
      Environmentalist?   Perhaps it is, and
      this blonde lady Priscilla Farrel, Self Righteous Puritan Zealot on 60 Minutes
      can be the first in line.  Watch 60
      Minutes here: 
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r9-WeNXzTQ&feature=share    What is so infuriating is liberal
      environmentalist will not even begin to look at the real theoretical and
      academic work done by Green libertarian environmentalists.  See here:


      (6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate

      negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul

      withdrawing the US from the UN,)  —  Its
      only a negative image from YOUR point of view. 
      From our libertarian one, it would be “leading the way to
      decentralized power structures that the elites cannot control for their own
      benefit”.  You must recall,
      libertarianism, which is based upon the equal individual rights of Man (Life,
      Liberty & Property) advocates a VOLUNTARY relationship between Man.  Libertarianism is a bottom up voluntary
      peaceful societal structure, one that favors decentralization rather than
      centralization of power.  The UN offers a
      universal overreaching Power Structure that is terribly tempting and ripe for
      abuse.  To date the funding of the UN is
      voluntary, thus its edicts are weak and subject to various nation states not
      following UN prodigal.  That is a good
      thing, we say.  If the UN actually had a
      world tax upon the world’s nation states its power over Mankind would be
      insatiable. Take Monsanto for instance. If it can get the UN to do its bidding
      from the top down, the little farmer looses and so does genetic diversity.  The good things that the UN does do, can be
      done in a different way out side of a monolithic power structure. Wilson’s
      progressive dream of a United Nations that settles disputes and stops wars has
      been tried and its failed to stop wars. 
      The UN should be abolished before a Caesar takes over and rules Mankind
      from its throne.  As any student of
      history of China or Rome can tell you, Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power
      Corrupts Absolutely.  We would be wise to
      end our association with the UN, stop funding it, and certainly do not have its
      legal prescriptions superseded our Constitution and our laws.  Keeping power decentralized and local is a
      central tenet of libertarianism, thus Ron Paul’s desire to get out of the UN is
      quite understandable.


    • Your either an idiot or your getting your info from idiots like Red State or James Kirchick. Ron Paul voted to repeal don’t ask don’t tell and yet you claim ”
      Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things.” 

  30. Ronpaulite2012 | Feb 3, 2012 at 5:42 am |

    What a shocker..more race-baiting smear nonsense.
    Only Ron Paul!!!!
    Mitt cannot beat Obama, because he is Obama in a different suit. Even if he did, we would be Obama part II.

    Check out this video on YouTube:


  31. Tchoutoye | Feb 3, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    Who’d have known neo-Nazis loved Thai food?

  32. Well, I can easily prove or disprove at least one part of that. That Tara Thai is 10 mi. away from me. I’ll just go there on Wednesdays. Too bad they have shitty food.

  33. Ben Richards | Feb 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

    Anyone who’s done their homework knows Anonymous is FED run now. Of course their going to say Ron Paul is a Neo Nazi. Anonymous is a Guy Fox mockery and a sick joke. The feds are using Anonymous to attack politically inconvenient politicians as well as menace society as a whole so the government can use them as a reason to take away more of our liberties. If Anonymous was legit they’d be behind Ron Paul. You want the truth go to infowars.com. At least Aron Dykes, Alex Jones, Paul Watson and the rest of the crew don’t hide behind a stupid Guy Fox mask and wear black robes. Anonymous is just another obsolete tool the desperate New World Order nazis are using to corral the populace back onto their ideological ranch. If anyone’s in bed with the Nazi’s it’s Anonymous. Everyone meet the new Al CIAda we’re all supposed to be afraid of. Tell everyone you know Anonymous cannot be trusted or believed. Oh and by the way, the Feds are using Anonymous as their ace in the hole for shutting down our freedom on the internet. Way to be you fucking losers.

  34. This thread is on like Ron Paul Kong!

    *total Ron Paul meltdown*

  35. I heard that  Anonymous  is a  Democrat  entity.  I understand that  the  young  people  that  belong to  the OWS  are  being  tricked and  used.  I  understand  the communists  have  set  it  up  and  it is  a  front.  I thought  they were  good  guys  at  first  cause  they were  against  the  Fed  and  bankers.  The  communists  like  to  use  groups such as  OWS to  cause  revolution by the  unsatisfied and poor  and  out of  work. Their  eventual  aim  is to  overthrow the  government.  Ron  Paul  on  the  other  hand is  anti-communist. 

  36. Ron  Paul  has  atheist  fans  but  he  is not an  atheist.  Ron  Paul has  all kinds of   fans,  but that  does  not  mean  he  is one  of  them.  A presidential  candidate  is  supposed  to  become  the  president  of  everyone,  an  if  the  nominee,  Ron  Paul  will  be the President of  everyone .  And  everyone who  is a citizen  of the  USA has  a right to  back  whoever  they want.  On  needs to  be  inclusive.  Should  Romney  kick  out  all his Mormon backers and  fans  cause  the Evangelicals do  not  like Mormons  ? NO !  Should  Santorum  kick out  his  Evangelical  fans  cause  the  Democrats  do  not  like  Evangelicals ? NO !   Should  Obama  kick  out  his rich  fans  cause  they  are  rich ? NO !  Should  Gingrich  kick out  his  Evangelical  followers  cause, the  Democrats  do  no t like  them ?  And  because  the  gays  do  no t  like  them ? NO !

  37. I Honestly with all sincerity can’t believe how ignorant people are on this site.

  38. Slurrrzday | Feb 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm |

     “Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the
    Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review,
    and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually
    on Wednesdays,”

    a thai restaurant seems an unlikely place to hold white power meetings…

  39. What a crock of shit.

  40. TregLoyden | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:03 am |

    Liberals, Racism, and “Thought Crime”

    Racism is rarely defined in liberal PC America. Today it is taken to mean
    anything NOT liberal or progressive. How convenient you say? Yes it is, and
    they use the “race card” all the time, so much that the importance of
    its real meaning is lost. They seek to make it impossible to be a real
    conservative not be a racist.

    A liberal may ask you,…

    –“Do you want real freedom, real free small
    government America, real free markets, guns, keep ALL your money, etc, why I am
    already suspecting you of deep racism just dying to get out. Yes it’s a form of
    Thought Control. Already we have “Hate Crimes”. Are you for
    abolishing the welfare and the minimum wage? Mmmm I am getting real
    “racist vibes”. Are you like Doctor Paul worried about communism and the idea of world government that you are a John Bircher? We know those guys are secret racists!  Ron Paul father of the Tea Party? I am smelling REAL racist here. Are you like Ron Paul,  not happy with the Civil
    Rights Act that makes “public space” out of our “private
    property”? Indeed, are you one of those who is obsessed with the
    Constitution-the document that said black people where only 3/4 of a person?
    Mmmmm man the racist vibes are strong! Don’t you know that we can’t “fix” the Civil
    Rights act! If anything changes people will suddenly devolve into full blown
    racists again! If it was not for 64 CVR all hell would break loose? 
    Racissssssssssst! ” —

    And Liberals like to think that it’s their benevolent egalitarianism that
    they like to believe saves them from the charge, but they would be wrong.

    The terms racist, racism and bigot are so vague and wide open and misused
    these days. TV and Radio is full of such claims. It seems to me it’s done
    intentionally by those on the liberal PC LEFT. It’s done so much that the terms
    could lose all their real important meaning.

    But there is a definition for racism: Racism is the degradation of an ethnic
    groups characteristics (real or imagined) and using that a reason or excuse for
    LEGAL discrimination and denying that person his/her individual rights to Life,
    Liberty and Property (fairly & justly acquired of course).

    What will this nation do when real racism comes? And like war, it will come
    back. Indeed, the two go hand in hand, like THOUGHT CONTROL and THOUGHT CRIMES.

    VIDEO: Watch YOUR future “Thought Crimes” : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR3RzN4EQgE&feature=related

    • Tuna Ghost | Feb 10, 2012 at 1:55 am |

      Racism is rarely defined in liberal PC America.

      Blatantly false.  Practically every article I’ve read on “liberal PC America” blogs, news sites, or what-have-you start with a definition and often a primer of racial issues.  They have to, because idiots show up frequently with no idea what they’re talking about, so its good to have something to reference when engaging with them.

      It’s not the “liberals” who refuse to define or nail down a definitive answer to “what is racism?”.  

  41. TregLoyden | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:23 am |


  42. Honest to Jesus Christ the best thing about any Ron Paul thread is it’s got a certain internet troll convention feel about it. Every crank crawls from the woodwork with the most insane logic & devotion for a crack pot of an old man who will never be President of the United States.  Or a cult.  

    Yes I watch the mass media, why?

  43. TregLoyden | Feb 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm |

    Here is the REAL problem we have.  We have a WAR MONGER in the White House. 

    Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbgcvi5r4dc

  44. Athenaclark | Feb 19, 2012 at 8:33 am |

    We lost a chance to keep this country on the right track with Ross Perot, now they are trashing another hero. Everyone who cannot see how wall street has RAPED this country and other countries through easy credit and then targeted shorting deserves to go broke, like Greece, and you all will keep this race BS going on like it is important. Divide and conquer-that is the game.

  45. Any chance you guys might want to update or retract this story?  A3P nominated their own presidential candidate within a few days of this story’s propagation, so its pretty obvious they are not/were not backing Paul to any meaningful extent.  And whoever wrote these things being presented as emails seems to lack basic knowledge of grammar and conventional sentence structure, i.e. they are unlikely to have come from professional political organizations.  So either we have to assume that this anonymous group, who’s identities are obviously unknown, actually took the emails from the people they say they did, and that these poorly-guarded, poorly-worded emails revealed correspondence and associations completely unsubstantiated by any other objective evidence, or we have to assume that whoever published this stuff is lying.  I think Occam’s razor has a pretty clear application in this case, and I think any minimum standard of journalistic ethics would require at least an update.

    • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 22, 2012 at 10:54 am |

      I agree, but sadly gossip creates hit counts and that is the currency of modern magazines.  If you have any counter articles you would like to post send them my way and I will see about getting them up -camronwiltshire@gmail.com

  46. Goto@hell.com | Mar 23, 2012 at 10:35 am |

    we all now know that anon is really just the fbi in disguise…………

    • Don’t expect us to believe your lies, you psy-ops shill.  Anonymous is obviously CIA, not FBI.

Comments are closed.