|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't quite understand the racism here...Is he pointing out the media double standard in covering "complex embezzling" while avoiding reporting on more common crimes committed by blacks? I don't get it.:conf: |
He is saying that white people are rich and therefore commit corporate crimes, and that black people are brutish and therefore murder and rob people on the street before running away on their fleet feet (no wonder "we" fear them!). And that 90-95% of black people commit these crimes because they aren't as advanced as white people are. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
He is saying that white people are rich and therefore commit corporate crimes, and that black people are brutish and therefore murder and rob people on the street before running away on their fleet feet (no wonder "we" fear them!). And that 90-95% of black people commit these crimes because they aren't as advanced as white people are. |
O, I see. Thx. :wtf: |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| In Paul's defense, British PM Tony Blair made a similar statement this past year. He said that aggressive violence and knifings are "part of black culture" and it's no use pretending this isn't so. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and i agree with everything you said (though i do believe a substantial amount of Federal income tax comes back to us in the form of umpteen million agriculture, education, and various social subsidies) but with as much money that is in his state right now the idea of him earmarking anything while upholding the virtues Federalism, original intent and smallest government possible it seems weird to me.
i'm not completely against the idea of earmarking. of course i'm against plain gratuitous exploitation of it and all the hiding behind it. it needs transparency if it's going to continue.
i don't really know the actual amount he was requesting. i'm assuming it couldn't have been that much comparatively.
EDIT> aftr some Googling i've found out not only does Ron Paul love earmarks, he really looovvvveessss earmarks.
scratch what i saisd about "couldn't have been that much comparatively". he has disclosed his request for $400 million in earmarks this year alone. >pdf LINK< additionaly, his district has seen a total of $31 BILLION in earmarks since 2000.
combine that with his straight-up hypocritical voting record it's amazing.
the more i look into this guy...it ain't pretty.
he's a career legislator...a committee man. zero executive, senior administrative experience.
nope. he can stay that way. he's not getting near the Whitehouse.
anybody, right or left, with half a brain should look the other way from this guy. |
This all has to be taken in context. $31 billion for his district since 2000 is 4.4 billion a year. How does that compare to other representatives and congressmen? How does requesting $400 million in a year compare to other lawmakers? Citizens Against Government Waste ranked Paul 9 out of the 436 ranked representatives in 2006 for having the best record for avoiding waste through earmarks, etc.
http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter...e-desc&lcmd_cf=
People can throw up numbers all they want, but until we take that into perspective with how other candidates (if applicable) and representatives are fairing when it comes to pork, the numbers are meaningless. Paul is working in a system he despises and by some accounts only 8 other politicians are doing a better job than him at avoiding waste. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
For those complaining the quotes are out of context, here's the full text.
| quote: | It is extremely difficult to track down content from the Ron Political/Survival Report today. The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media. Lexis/Nexis is of no help, as the obscure publication largely escaped the notice of major media publications during Paul's hiatus from electoral politics. What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview.
The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. |
To be honest, the excerpts already posted are some of the less offensive stuff in here:
| quote: | LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM
The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality. |
(he's talking about black people here)
| quote: | | Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay. Worst of all, we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal anarchy. |
Criminal anarchy is, of course, perpetuated entirely by black people.
| quote: | | In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting. |
Blacks = communists
| quote: | | Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians. |
Wait, I thought Ron Paul was against categorizing hate crimes? Oh, I see. Only when they're targeted at gays or blacks. And beating Rodney King certainly didn't constitute a hate crime.
| quote: | | The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. |
Get that? Young black males and their accomplices terrorize "us" every single day.
| quote: | | As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. |
It's part of their "culture."
| quote: | | Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? |
Do I need even comment? A highly suspect anecdotal story, followed by the claim that no white child of a racist white supremacist has ever been taught to hate black people. I suppose that's why we never see racially-motivated attacks in our schools. Oh wait...
| quote: | | I've never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank. |
Or a high five in Jena, Louisiana, and other like-minded communities.
| quote: | | But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. |
The whole black community is racist, you see.
| quote: | | The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history |
Like slavery.
| quote: | | and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it. |
See? Not only do blacks = communist, but they think white people can't possibly understand a history of slavery either!
| quote: | | The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare programs in the last 30 years. |
And we all know that there are no whites on welfare. And that the "ghetto youths" united as one to rape and pillage white America.
| quote: | And if we adjust that figure for 1992 dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little street crime. Are black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were
treated far worse in California than blacks. |
They were locked up for two years!! And blacks were locked up for... well it was a long time ago.
| quote: | | They were even put in concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred). |
You heard it here folks. Black people hate productive people. In fact, they hate anyone that isn't lazy. Because they are lazy. All of them.
| quote: | | The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. |
Black people = barbarians
(he's talking about black people)
| quote: | | cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. |
Because we all know that such "terrorism" is wildly profitable, and thus an attractive alternative to paying your way through college.
| quote: | | Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. |
lol irony
| quote: | | And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks. |
And you can quote them on that.
| quote: | | Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones. |
Let me take the opportunity to remind you hear that he's talking about black people doing all the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings.
| quote: | | The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot. |
Though they are barbarians, they still need excuses for it.
| quote: | Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.
The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King, a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night of March 3, 1991. He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for almost eight miles. They raced on the highway until King turned off to drive through traffic lights and stop signs on residential streets (families could have been killed). |
Entire. Families. Of white people.
Nevermind that the entire chase lasted just a few minutes.
| quote: | | The L.A. police department came to assist in the high-speed chase with lights and sirens on. One of King's passengers asked him to pull over. King initially refused, driving faster, but he finally complied. |
You really get the picture of a lengthy chase from this, eh?
| quote: | When the cops approached the car, suspecting armed criminals, the two black passengers immediately stepped out of the car and fell flat on their stomachs with arms stretched out, as instructed. They were handcuffed. King could have done the same. But he chose a different route. He refused to get out of the car. He stalled for
a minute, and several times, stepped out of the car and then back into it. The police wondered if he was searching the car for a gun. |
All black people have them readily available.
| quote: | | Once King stopped this game, he was told by cops with guns pointing at him to put his belly down on the ground with arms outstretched. Instead, King began to do a crazy dance and laugh freakishly. |
Like a monkey. Get it?
| quote: | | He taunted the police and even the helicopter buzzing above him. This is why the police thought he was on PCP. |
They certainly didn't say he was on PCP to justify their actions in hindsight.
| quote: | Despite police orders, King continued to dance, grabbing his buttocks to make lewd gestures at a female cop. Sgt. Koon approached him and warned that he would be stung with a Taser gun. King got down on his hands and knees, but refused to lay flat. He was again warned, but King refused. Officer Powell put his knee on King's back to get him down on the ground so he could be handcuffed. King went down to the ground, but bounced back up, shaking off all the police who were trying to get hold of him. Finally, Koon stung him with the gun, delivering 50,000 volts of electricity, and King fell to the ground again. But again he bounced up, prompting Koon to deliver another 50,000 volts. King fell again, this time into the proper position. Not a single baton blow had been delivered and the cops thought everything was over.
At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250 pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again. Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.
In all, he was hit 56 times, and even in the end he refused to comply. He had to be cuffed in an odd position that risked the lives of the cops. The hospital reported that King had suffered an injury on the face from when he fell to the ground and minor injuries to his leg. He was never hit on the spine or the head, which would have violated regulations. |
In the video you can see that the very first baton blow hit him in the head, but whatever.
| quote: | | And he was not beaten nearly to death, as some have claimed. The jury concluded that at every point of that night's action, King was in control. He could have complied at any time and stopped the beating. |
We all know how easy it is to lie prostrate after being kneed in the back, tased three times, and beaten by 56 blows from a police baton.
| quote: | Whether we agree or disagree with the juries verdict--that the cops did not use exxcessive force--it is instructive to know what they saw and what the media still refuses to tell us or show us. None of the major networks showed the video scene when King rushed Officer Powell after the first Taser jolt. Only CNN showed it, one time. And no major paper even mentioned it. Neither did any major paper or network tell of the two passengers who complied and were peacefully arrested. Why? We were shown the section of tape where the cops hit King as a metaphor for white racism. Shown it again and again, we were supposed to feel guilty.
Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a transvestite prostitute, |
In Ron Paul's America, individual liberty stops at transvestites.
| quote: | | and when caught, tried to run over the cops who intervened. He was not arrested. This was not reported outside of L.A. He was also not jailed for violating his parole (for armed robbery) or for drunk and reckless driving or for violently resisting arrest. |
All of this can be viewed in slightly less biased terms here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...ingarrests.html
| quote: | | The verdict was handed down at 3:15pm on April 29. For weeks we had heard threats that the blacks would riot if the officers were not convicted. Taking that into account, did the media or politicians defer to the jury (as they do when a liberal-approved criminal is released)? Not at all. At 5:10 pm, liberal black L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley said he was shocked and outraged at the verdict. |
The fact that he was black and liberal being the key piece of information here.
| quote: | | He denounced the jurors for approving "the senseless and brutal beating of a helpless man." As an afterthought, he asked the city to "remain calm." |
We all know that was a secret code phrase for "riot!!"
| quote: | With those words, he might as well have thrown a match into a pool of gasoline. It was permission for the blacks to "express their rage."
Ten minutes later, the police got their first report of trouble. Blacks were throwing beer cans at passing cars. When the police showed up, the crowds had gotten much bigger. Cops tried to control them, but realized they were outnumbered. Realizing that they could not use their guns or even look cross-eyed at a black, a video recorded a policeman saying: "It's not worth it. Let's go." Indeed it wasn't worth it. The cops could only have put themselves on trial and had their lives ruined too. |
Is this supposed to be humorous? Is he saying that cops can't do their jobs without resorting to force?
| quote: | | Ironically, they were being filmed and are now denounced. But it was the Establishment's reaction to the Rodney King verdict that set the precedent that black criminals always have the benefit of the doubt over white police. |
Guilty until proven innocent I say!
| quote: | | At 5:45, the field commander in the area where the riots began ordered that no police go into the area. "I want everybody out of here. Get out. Now." He wanted to protect his police force, which could take no action without media criticism and legal action, from rioters who vastly outnumbered them and were sometimes better armed. The blacks started to attack cars driven by whites and light-skinned Hispanics with crowbars, rocks, bottles, and even a metal traffic sign. |
The blacks had every intention of killing whites (remember the barbarian desires line earlier) and were better armed than the cops, and they attacked with bottles?
| quote: | | At the last minute, some police officers rescued a woman abandoned in her car and were pelted by rocks as they left. |
Implication: the officers were pelted for helping a white woman.
| quote: | | At 6:45, a white man was dragged from a delivery truck and thrown to the ground and beaten, as black assailants yelled, "That's how Rodney King felt, white boy!" Another white truck driver, Reginald O. Denny, pulled into the area and five blacks beat him nearly to death. One threw a fire extinguisher at his head as he lay unconscious, breaking nearly every bone in his face. A white boy was pulled from his motorcycle and shot in the head. All this happened less than an hour and a half after the mayor had denounced the verdict. Rather than call for even minimal standards of justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excusemaking mode, justifying black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12 years of neglect," etc., but never evil. |
Which is what black people are. And which is what motivates all of their misdeeds. As opposed to slavery, which was motivated out of the goodness of white people's hearts.
| quote: | The fires burned out of control as firemen were attacked by the rioters as well, in one case with an axe.
All banks within the vicinity of rioting, meaning nearly all of
central L.A., were immediately shut down. People who wanted to cash checks or make deposits were shocked to find them closed. They were also stunned to find city transit not running. Taxicabs were nowhere in sight. White people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the minefield of black gangs out for their blood. |
That's what black people do - hunt white people like animals.
| quote: | | Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops, California has a 14-day waiting period. |
Damn those gun control laws.
| quote: | | And then, just to make sure honest Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned (poor rage-filled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up earlier, or who could simply break in and loot. |
Damn them for not wanting the situation to escalate further into an all-out urban war.
| quote: | Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.
|
lol, what? See how crazy this guy is???
| quote: | White reporters and photographers who entered the riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes accumulated.
In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified because blacks "can't get no justice." |
That's right. Black politicians are pro-terrorist.
| quote: | | The newsmen of the major networks interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city youth." Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned. |
Jesus never would have extended an olive branch to help them out of their despair. He would have advocated same-day gun purchases to better foster reprisal killings and start an all-out racial war in American cities.
| quote: | | The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched); Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas. I'm sure that there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we haven't heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn't want us to know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth. |
And trying to tell us that blacks aren't a threat to white culture! Hmph!
| quote: | | Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. |
All blacks live on welfare.
| quote: | | The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided. |
Should have killed them off, not paid them off, eh?
| quote: | Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not be prosecuted.
Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an Asian). But it was the leading "civil rights" organization that is at fault for this.
What did Bush say about the riots? First he promised to have the Justice Department see if it could retry the cops for violating Rodney King's "civil rights." But what about the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy? No one cares. Then Bush promised an immediate payoff of $600 million to L.A. gangsters. When the liberals called this a "token", he raised the amount to $1.2 billion. He has vacillated between pretending to be a tough guy and condemning the rioters, and taking up the Jack Kemp line that inner-city "despair" can be fixed through more federal programs. |
Let them fend for themselves!
| quote: | | But this is capitulation to terrorist demands. |
Premise 1 - All black people are terrorists.
Premise 2 - All black people live on welfare.
Conclusion - Welfare helps terrorists.
| quote: | | The advice some libertarians give---"don't vote, it only encourages them" applies here. We must not kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders. |
Never give black people what they want!!!
| quote: | | At a Washington, D.C., rally two weeks after the L.A. attempt at revolution, |
A revolution? I missed that memo.
| quote: | many poured out to lobby for more money to be given to the
cities. The most commonly held sign was: "Justice for Rodney King. Free all the L.A. prisoners." Now, consider for a moment what this slogan implies. Were they upset by the murders, the burned buildings, and the $1 billion in property damage? Not at all, except to use it as an excuse to get more cash. They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly different from the Crips and the Bloods. |
All blacks are gang members.
| quote: | | But the Crips and the Bloods, it turns out, have been "misunderstood," according to Ted Koppel who interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them, he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn't pull him out of his stretch limousine. |
How dare he find terrorists personally tolerable. They have no redeemable characteristics!
| quote: | | Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. |
Good sense, in this use of the phrase, means racism.
| quote: | | Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable. |
So if you meet a black person, note well: it's probably a terrorist.
| quote: | | Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, |
The rest of them are barbarian stupidheads.
| quote: | | i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. |
Note: these are the only sensible political opinions allowed in Ron Paul's America.
| quote: | | I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. |
The other 95% of black people? Not so decent.
| quote: | | They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. |
We need to stop letting them slip through the cracks! Jail them all.
Luckily, the 95% of blacks that are criminals coincide with the 95% that have no sensible political opinions. Two birds with one stone!
And anyway, this surely isn't a product of a racist police force that arrests blacks for the same crime more frequently than whites, which was the point of the riots in the first place, eh? And we certainly wouldn't be contributing to that sentiment by labeling 95% of all blacks as criminal or "semi-criminal," whatever that means.
| quote: | | If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. |
It's genetic.
| quote: | | Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. |
You supported the end of segregation, now look what we have!
| quote: | | The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. |
Aside from all the jail sentences mentioned earlier.
| quote: | Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," |
That they don't deserve!
| quote: | | preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, |
Gerrymandered by whites to isolate the black voters into as few districts as possible. But that's beside the point.
| quote: | | black bureaucracies, black mayors, |
Elected illegitimately I'm sure.
| quote: | | black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, |
As opposed to such multi-cultural shows as Friends and Seinfeld.
Who gave them a journalism degree??
| quote: | black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda. |
Never mind that historically black universities are remnants of an age when blacks couldn't go to "white" schools like the University of Alabama or the University of Arkansas. And never mind that they are historically black.
| quote: | | Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be the major problem of the 1990s. |
IF IT'S THE LAST THING I DO!
| quote: | | Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285. |
http://groups.google.com/group/soc....8668bd3662b0fa5 |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| I love your commentary lez. :stongue: |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| I do it for the ladies. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I'm starting to see the anti-Ron Paul mantra forming; bash him for "racist" comments and actions that have either been taken out of context or have been attributed to the writings of staffers who were subsequently let go. (You can see how well the NY Times did with that.) Or, smear him because he uses earmarks to get money to his home district, even though he is vocally opposed to them, yet has no alternative. And when pointing out his earmarks, fail to put them into proper perspective by showing what other politicians are doing.
There you go...repeat the racism/earmark "hypocrisy" card over and over.
In the end I'll take the candidate that I feel has at least a chance of changing the status quo, versus a list of main stream candidates that have just as many or more flaws as Paul yet are destined to lead us down the path we've already been on for the last several decades. I can guarantee things won't change under the other candidates, but at least there's a chance with Paul. And yes, I'll take the remote possibility of a complete Ron Paul presidential failure (if elected) with the hope that things might actually improve rather than continuing the slow death our current politicians are leading us towards. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm starting to see the anti-Ron Paul mantra forming; bash him for "racist" comments and actions that have either been taken out of context or have been attributed to the writings of staffers who were subsequently let go. (You can see how well the NY Times did with that.) Or, smear him because he uses earmarks to get money to his home district, even though he is vocally opposed to them, yet has no alternative. And when pointing out his earmarks, fail to put them into proper perspective by showing what other politicians are doing.
There you go...repeat the racism/earmark "hypocrisy" card over and over.
In the end I'll take the candidate that I feel has at least a chance of changing the status quo, versus a list of main stream candidates that have just as many or more flaws as Paul yet are destined to lead us down the path we've already been on for the last several decades. I can guarantee things won't change under the other candidates, but at least there's a chance with Paul. And yes, I'll take the remote possibility of a complete Ron Paul presidential failure (if elected) with the hope that things might actually improve rather than continuing the slow death our current politicians are leading us towards. |
I hope I haven't necessarily come across as an anti-Paul type of guy here, at least I don't feel that I am (perhaps I should have used a better descriptive in my earlier post than "racist ?"). In a number of aspects, including the one that you mention about changing the status quo, I am very much in support of his view. But I do think there are apparent contradictions and questionable things and actions he has done in the past including the clearly racist comments that must be taken into account. And I think the ferver of the all-too-common internet bandwagon has taken a hold of a number of supporters without those supporters truly examining his record and past statements because they want the same thing as you do - change the status quo. Intentions so many supporters are no doubt sincere, but when someone comes into the spotlight as Paul has, then you have to expect everything will be examined with scrutiny about the man.
It happens to ALL the candidates who take up a little spotlight. You don't think Hillary hasn't been scrutinized a little? Edwards? Obama? Huckabee? Giuliani? McCain? They've all had it, and now it's Paul's turn. If he's still standing after it's all said and done, all the more power to him. But don't think he will receive any less treatment that the other candidates have received. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I hope I haven't necessarily come across as an anti-Paul type of guy here, at least I don't feel that I am (perhaps I should have used a better descriptive in my earlier post than "racist ?"). In a number of aspects, including the one that you mention about changing the status quo, I am very much in support of his view. But I do think there are apparent contradictions and questionable things and actions he has done in the past including the clearly racist comments that must be taken into account. And I think the ferver of the all-too-common internet bandwagon has taken a hold of a number of supporters without those supporters truly examining his record and past statements because they want the same thing as you do - change the status quo. Intentions so many supporters are no doubt sincere, but when someone comes into the spotlight as Paul has, then you have to expect everything will be examined with scrutiny about the man.
It happens to ALL the candidates who take up a little spotlight. You don't think Hillary hasn't been scrutinized a little? Edwards? Obama? Huckabee? Giuliani? McCain? They've all had it, and now it's Paul's turn. If he's still standing after it's all said and done, all the more power to him. But don't think he will receive any less treatment that the other candidates have received. |
I totally agree with you. I don't think you'll ever find a person, when looking at a body of work that spans decades, who won't have contradictions, slip-of-the-tongues and stances that can be perceived as controversial. I don't think Paul is a "perfect" candidate or even person, but I also don't think that there is such a thing as a "perfect" candidate or person. I do believe however, that he has the most upside of the candidates and that many of his more extreme ideas would be tempered by the rest of the government. I think more than anything it disturbs me when things taken out of context or without full explanation are used to mudsling a candidate. I know this is unfortunately the way things work, but it makes me upset regardless of the candidate. I'm not expecting everyone to think Paul is the next coming, as I certainly do not, but with him, as well as with any candidate, I'm much more comfortable defending positions when a complete view is given, rather than one obviously biased in one direction. My original comment was not directed at anyone in particular. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I totally agree with you. I don't think you'll ever find a person, when looking at a body of work that spans decades, who won't have contradictions, slip-of-the-tongues and stances that can be perceived as controversial. I don't think Paul is a "perfect" candidate or even person, but I also don't think that there is such a thing as a "perfect" candidate or person. I do believe however, that he has the most upside of the candidates and that many of his more extreme ideas would be tempered by the rest of the government. I think more than anything it disturbs me when things taken out of context or without full explanation are used to mudsling a candidate. I know this is unfortunately the way things work, but it makes me upset regardless of the candidate. I'm not expecting everyone to think Paul is the next coming, as I certainly do not, but with him, as well as with any candidate, I'm much more comfortable defending positions when a complete view is given, rather than one obviously biased in one direction. My original comment was not directed at anyone in particular. |
I agree that there will never be a "perfect" candidate, but I think you do have to scrutinize not only candidates you support, but the actual positions they hold as well. I was immediately drawn to Paul with his rhetoric on ending the war and increasing freedom at home, etc. After all, I consider myself a progressive who opposes the war and domestic spying, etc. But upon further scrutinization of Paul, I came to the conclusion that he is just as dangerous as many of the other candidates I cannot bring myself to support. Withdrawing from Iraq is one thing (albeit risky, leaving another country to certain disintegration) - that I can probably tolerate.
But withdrawing from the world in its entirety I cannot. Paul is talking about abrogating all international treaties - that if any is the one point I have brought up the most frequently (here as well as in the lengthy thread that Capitalizt subsequently deleted) - nobody has defended this position. I think it would be extraordinarily dangerous. Imagine a client that rescinds all past agreements - would anybody ever trust that client well enough to do business with them again? I think not. Which makes the "if we lead the way into free trade, others will follow" argument especially dense. Nobody will feel any obligation to trust a country that just stated that any international agreement they've previously signed is null and void. In fact, I imagine we'll see some of Ron Paul's "blowback" in relation to that - countries will find it increasingly unpopular to trade freely with a country that has no sense of living up to its commitments. That doesn't just go for NATO and the UN, though withdrawing from the UN would be about as unpopular a thing as we could do in the world. That goes for the literally thousands of bilateral trade agreements, international laws and conventions, and other agreements that the US has put its name and reputation behind. Not living up to such agreements is embarrassing and stupid. Removing ourselves from them outright is far worse.
And as for the actual positions of the candidate. With further scrutiny of his Congressional record and the bills he sponsored, there are some glaring hypocrisies in what he has said during the campaign and the bills that he has written and brought to the floor of the House. How can you justify those? Where does the true Ron Paul lie? Is the real Ron Paul the one who puts his money where his mouth is in Congress? Or is the true Ron Paul the one who is running a campaign to gain popularity to get elected? If we are quick to distrust anything coming out of the mouths of the other candidates when it doesn't match their record (Mitt Romney?) then I think the same courtesy has to be extended to Rep. Paul even though he claims incessently that all he wants is freedom.
Furthermore, his economic policy is crazy! Tying money to the gold standard (or "moving in that direction" as you put it earlier in the thread) is just not sound fiscal policy, and that is why so few economists advocate it. In fact, many of them have outright come out against it as not being beneficial to the national welfare. Paul demonizes inflation, but economists will tell you that moderate levels of inflation (which we currently have) do have some positive effects, as opposed to the levels of deflation we would experience on a fixed exchange, and which do indeed have negative effects that most certainly contributed to the depth of the Great Depression. In addition, a fixed exchange abrogates all fiscal controls that have been established to provide security in the market. We would be leaving the dollar to the whims of whatever it is fixed to, with very little in the way of counter-measures to stabilize it if the price of gold or the currency it is fixed to fluctuates. Gold is a depreciating asset - we aren't finding more of it - in fact, the more that gets used for commercial goods or deteriorates over time, the less value our gold reserves have - what would happen to the dollar? Our growth in dollar terms would be tied to an asset that is already maxed out.
The racism and earmarks discussion was hardly the first concern of myself or anyone else that has commented on it. But it is another in a long series of disturbing discoveries about Paul that show that he may not be who he says he is. Joe Biden's presidential campaign was a non-starter in large part because he called Obama "clean." That pales in comparison to the comments made under Paul's name in that newsletter, which is posted above in its entirety to give you all the context you should need. And as for earmarks, doesn't it show the depth of his "principles" that he is not willing to put his money where his mouth is? After all, he ends up being complicit in the same electoral politics about which he then uses the "holier than thou" argument in the debates.
And don't even get me into the stupidity of eliminating entire federal departments and agencies. You don't think that the Peace Corps and USAID have won the United States serious brownie points worldwide? Or that the State Department provides a pretty useful service (when applied correctly) in being our first line of defense abroad? Or that the Department of Homeland Security, however inadequate it might be, provides far greater security than we would have if it didn't exist at all?
Besides the general "Ron Paul stands for freedom and peace and difference" arguments, nothing has been said to convince me that the application of his broad platform would be in any way good for this country. The status quo is broken. But Ron Paul does not have a solution to make things better. In fact, I firmly believe that Ron Paul's America would be far, far worse than anything we have seen so far. Which is why I make posts like these - because it is very disturbing for me to see the rise of his popularity even on sites like this one. I truly don't think that very many of his supporters have looked into Ron Paul beyond the ronpaul2008 website. Because if they had, maybe they too, like me, would be completely repulsed by his candidacy and the defilement of the genuinely good principles he says he stands for. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
It's astonishing to me how much time people like les spend demonizing RP and his positions. The guy is a "2%" candidate according to Paul bashers, yet they spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on him. I find this is a common trend on many other forums I visit. Both lefties and "Hannity-Republicans" will literally spend HOURS and HOURS of their free time digging up dirt on Dr Paul and writing lengthy rebuttals to his positions.
Honestly, why waste your time? Are you afraid he might actually win?
Personally, I don't have as much faith in the American people. I think most people will go to the voting booth uninformed as usual, and vote for whatever neofascist candidate the media throws in their face.
Paul has a fighting chance to win a few primaries...but once that happens the GOP and democrat money machines will spend tens of millions to crush him. They can't have anyone like him disrupting the "game" they've been playing for the past 50 years. |
|
|
|
|
