Maani,

Very eloquent and to the point.

Thank you

Ron Paul also said that he will pardon all non-violent drug offenders currently in prison.  No single policy by any Presidential candidate would have such a positive impact on minorities who are in prison in proportions far in excess of their percentage of the population.

If Ron Paul IS a racist why aren’t there any tapes, audio or video of him uttering racists remarks?  He has been a public figure since 1974 and these old, ghostwritten newsletters is all the evidence there is?  Further, if Ron Paul IS a racist, how come nobody who knows him personally, has worked with him in Congress, is his neighbor etc has come out and said that he is a racist?  Not a single credible person is standing up saying Ron Paul is a racist.

Nelson Linder (Austin NAACP president) discusses Ron Paul in a radio interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

The “proof” used to smear him as a racist is also very questionable.  For example The New Republic offers the following “quote”:

“Opinion polls show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions.”

However, the newsletter ACTUALLY said the following:

“Opinion polls show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, the end of welfare and affirmative action.  I know many who fall into this group personally, and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.” 

Now how is that full quote much different than this quote from Shelby Steele on Bill Moyers’ Journal a few weeks ago:

“You know, it’s no accident that 92 percent of blacks vote Democratic in every Presidential election no matter what. The black identity is identified today with liberal politics and the Democratic Party. If you’re not a Democrat, you’re not all together black.”

More people close to Ron defending him:

A former employee of Ron Paul’s (Mexican / Native American) writes about Ron Paul:

http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexica n-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

Racism is a sin of the heart and no legislator can change that.  Only a fool would think they can compel another person to think or feel something different than what they feel.  The irony is, only a fool would think that the color of someone’s skin determines their character or value as a human being.  So basically, you have fools trying to change the hearts and minds of fools.  No wonder racism is still problematic.

Maani I support everything you wrote except for the part about Ron Paul’s stance on the profits of Exxon.  I do not think he is outraged by the profits but I know he is outraged that the special interests of the energy industry are so powerful that they influence or foreign policy so much that our military is out around the world defending their economic interests. 

What other Presidential Candidate have we ever heard say that the reason we are nation building in Afghanistan has less to do with terrorism and more to do with oil and gas interests?  Nobody but Ron Paul.

And he most certainly is the ONLY credible anti-war, pro civil liberty candidate running.  The record is simple.  IF you ever supported the war, voted for the war, voted for funding the war, or supported or voted for the Patriot Act you are eliminated.

Goodbye Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, and Huckster

Cyrena:

As usual, you show up to refute my points, yet give ZERO support for YOUR retorts.  Just more insults, name-calling, vitriol, etc.  Like MMC and others, you are becoming a one-note Johnny (or, in your case, Janie).  In fact, I think most people will see your opening paragraph for the empty, mean-spirited hot air that it is.

Everything I posted about Ron Paul’s positions can be found on his own site, two or three RP support sites, Wikipedia’s “Position” sites, and numerous independent blogs and reports.  I looked at ALL of those.  Indeed, you talk about his voting record, and I looked at that as well, which is where I got the info on his civil liberties record.

So what is the basis for YOUR continued claims of racism, etc.?  By the way, “racism” seems to be your new moniker for anyone who disagrees with you, politician or not.  You have accused at least three or four people here of being racist, including myself, despite ANY support to the contrary.

Cyrena, you keep saying you’ve “done the research,” and that my comments to the contrary are incorrect.

So how come you RARELY IF EVER PROVIDE any of that vaunted research you do, especially in refutation of my points (or those of quite a few others…)?

Nice try, sweetheart.  But you are as transparent as you are pathological in your need to use vulgarity, name-calling, etc. to support your points.

Peace.  (even on you…)

Maani, As usual, your arrogance matched with your ignorance causes you to appear with your foot in your mouth…maybe both of them. You could limit this embarrassment to yourself, by refraining from comments like the one below, which is simply uncalled for. This is plain and simple partisan ankle biting with accomplishes nothing, other than to show that you have no integrity and no class, and no character.
•  As usual, you expect everyone to do your research for you.  In a mere 20 minutes, I was able to find the following in response to your specific comments:
The fact of the matter is that I’ve ALREADY DONE the research, because..UNLIKE YOU, I’m not gonna put something out there, until I HAVE done it. And, this is all OLD news and research for me, (you’re always SO FAR BEHIND) so it’s all been posted on this site already, if not by me, than by others who have done the research as well. The ‘only 20 minutes’ that you spent, turned up the same thing that anybody else could have found in less than 2. And, it’s simply an old apologist thing for what we all know is a lie, because of what is far more important. RON PAULS RECORD in the Congress. Everything that you say here, is propaganda, and there’s not a shred of anything to prove it. Here’s more of your arrogance:

•  Brown v Board: I found nothing to indicate that he wishes to overturn or undo BvB.  He is a strong advocate of education, including tax credits and other subsidies therefor.

YOU found nothing, because you’re not too bright. So, just because you found nothing, then that’s it right? Well, there’s plenty on the Congressional record to prove his desire to not only overturn Brown, but to destroy any of the affirmative action policies that make a level playing field possible.

And, this is more bullshit that you claim is coming from the NAACP, because I lived in Texas for 17 years, and I know that Ron Pauls POLICIES are indeed racist. How many people do you think, in their right minds, and specifically politicians running for office, are gonna actually come out and SAY that they are racist? How stupid are you?

And, if black folks have been fooled by Ron Paul, that’s like NOTHING NEW. It’s been happening for a few hundred years you moron. Unfortunately, the black population of the South, (and Texas in particular) was isolated for a very long time, (took ‘em 18 months after the Emancipation Proclamation to find out they were free, as in no longer slaves) so that’s just something we’ve had to deal with. A catch-up, AND SOME DECENT EDUCATION, would help them considerably. (access to higher education in Texas if the pits for blacks).

So, go peddle your rhetoric elsewhere Maani. How did you get over here from being the HRC rah, rah, guy, to supporting the little troll here anyway?

And, explain why Ron Paul not ONLY wants to outlaw a womans right to choose, but also wants to outlaw birth control as well? In other words, he wants to ‘protect’ the unborn, before their even CONCEIVED? What’s up with THAT ideology Maani? Sounds very ‘Hitler-like’ to me. And, if you actually DID some research, you’d discover that under the surface, Ron Paul is very much the authoritarian.

And, why didn’t this interview show him saying something, or holding a position any different from the one that Obama has held since long before the war started. I’m pretty sick of people claiming that Ron Paul is the only ‘anti-war’ candidate. He’s not.

Now, I have real research to do. You should try it yourself. But, I suggest a library, as opposed to 20 minutes in the google mode.

Cyrena:

As usual, you expect everyone to do your research for you.  In a mere 20 minutes, I was able to find the following in response to your specific comments:

Racism: Paul was accused of racism based on a series of articles that appeared in newsletters that were published under his name (1978-1995), but for which he himself did not write.  However, he repudiated those comments numerous times, and his repudiations were widely publicized again in a New York Times Magazine article last year.  As well, the Austin chapter of the NAACP defended Paul as one of the LEAST racist politicians they have dealt with in Texas.  As an aside, he has raised more money from blacks than any other republican candidates.

Church/State: He believes simply that the DOI and Constitution did not require freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion.  And while he believes in voluntary school prayer and the right to display items like the Ten Commandments on government property, he remains fully supportive of the separation of church and state.

Roe v Wade: He does want to overturn it.  However, he says that this is because he feels that the federal government should not be legislating morality one way or the other, and believes that the abortion issue should be handled by the states.

Brown v Board: I found nothing to indicate that he wishes to overturn or undo BvB.  He is a strong advocate of education, including tax credits and other subsidies therefor.

Civil Liberties: He actually has it over everyone here.  He was against the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, illegal wiretapping (he believes that FISA should be enforced as broadly as possible AGAINST the government).  He is for property rights and against eminent domain.  He is for both industrial hemp and medical marijuana, and is against the “War on Drugs.”  He is also the strongest proponent of a free, unencumbered, untaxed Internet.

Other: He voted against NAFTA, WTO et al.  He is against immunity for telecoms, and is outraged at Exxon’s profits (as seen on the various blogs that he has).

See?  That wasn’t so difficult!

Peace.

On this I disagree with you.  I haven’t seen any credible evidence to support you claim that Ron Paul is a racist.  If you have proof, present it, other than that you present your own prejudiced opinion, which you are entitled.

As always you don’t know what you are talking about.

You ask about FISA?  Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has voted against the Patriot Act every time.  Obama?  No Clinton? No  

What answer do you have for that?

Then you cite a Time article that is an interview with legendary investor Jim Rodgers.  Guess who Jim Rodgers supports in this election? That’s right, Ron Paul.

Calling Ron Paul an authoritarian is laughable.

Claiming that he doesn’t care about the loss of life in war is even more despicable and devoid of truth.

Pathetic. As always

“Law and Charity are Not the Same” - Frederic Bastiat (an excerpt from The Law):

“The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit.  Its mission is to protect persons and property.

Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction.  The law cannot avoid having an effec upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.

The law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable.  Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.

If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia, or even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits.  Once started, where will you stop?  And where will the law stop itself?”

Yes, it IS too bad that Ron Paul is a racist, (and YES…to those of you in doubt, HE IS).  Is he a George Wallace style racist? Probably not, only because George Wallace was quite up front and open with his racist agenda, and so one KNEW what to expect, and could analyze his actions, motivations, etc, etc based on that.

Ron Paul is as much a racist as was George Wallace, as was Strom Thurmond, as have ANY of the ‘staunch’ racists have been, if not more so. The DIFFERENCE is that he’s been able to deflect attention away from that, (as well as his ultra conservatism) by pulling out the Libertarian mantle, and focusing on the main issue that is –at the end of the day- the issue of most concern, to MOST Americans, and that is the war.

I would disagree that he lacks communication skills, because I think his lack of communication on anything other than the issue of the war, and the economy, is very intentional. For those who claim that he is “against war” there is truth in that. But, he’s ‘against war’ for what it is costing us in treasure, NOT in blood. That is of no concern or consequence to Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not concerned about the loss of lives, but the loss of money. So to suggest the opposite, from what he has FAILED to say, (which is why one might see him as a bad communicator) is a dishonest representation of his policies. He is neither a pacifist or a humanist.

It is also disingenuous to claim that he is in favor of liberties for all, or even that he is a Constitutionalist, when his record proves time and time again, that he has consistently advanced motions and/or resolutions that would overturn or undermine many of the basics, beginning with the Separation of Church and State. He has also attempted to overturn the liberties/rights decided by Roe v. Wade, as well as many of those civil rights granted by Brown v. Board of Education. And, that is only the beginning.

If it were true, that Ron Paul has at the center of his ideology, this complaint about the loss of our civil liberties in the past several years, than he does not appear to be willing to actually ACT (in his capacity as a legislator) to stop those attacks where they originate. IF he was willing to do that, he would NOT have acted to prevent the introduction of impeachment efforts for Dick Cheney; efforts introduced by Dennis Kucinich. If he is unable/unwilling to take action against a primary source of these losses, and the rapid decline into a fascist takeover, then one should wonder why that is.

And yet, he has prevented any attention to these important matters, simply be deflecting attention away from them. So yes, he is a distraction, and more than anything else, a dividing distraction. His appeal is to the selfish and short-sighted among the populace, who are unable to ‘follow it out’, meaning the basic ideology, and where it will actually lead. Nobody has questioned HOW he will institute his pie in the sky policies, or what and whom will actually pay the price of these, because there is ALWAYS a price. Who will pay it, and how does anyone know, that it might not be them?

In short, what Ron Paul (very intentionally) DOES NOT say, is what the electorate should be looking for, or attempting to gain insight from. I think it proves a very authoritarian agenda, but for now, it remains hidden, at least from those who again..cannot ‘follow it thru’, and ask the difficult questions.

Now, I’m wondering what (if anything) he has to say about the FISA thing. Does he support the admin on that? How does he feel about immunity for the telecoms. How does he feel about Exxons latest profits?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1709247,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

After all, these are his long term back door neighbors and ‘family’ members.

Aegrus - please give me one example of where Ron Paul made a racist comment. The fact is you can’t. If you really want to know what Ron Paul think of racism you can read about it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Mike Gravel is another clearly pro peace candidate and is still in the running. Shoved so successfully to the side that most don’t know it, but still running.

And so what if Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance, vote for him anyway.

Ron needs a shot of it. 

His rational is spot on, if you share his concerns of how we as a nation have allowed the government to deviate from the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights.

I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in Maryland as a show of support of his views and policies.  His voting record reflects my views even though Steny Hoyer is my representative.
Time will tell, Hillary or Obama.  If Kucinich and Paul formed a Green Party, alot of people would vote for them because most Americans are not card carrying Republicans or Democrats.

The fact that the Federal Government takes 2 dollars for every one the State Government takes is wrong.
If we reversed those ratios and and the State Government recieved the larger share we would see immediate improvements in our day to day lives with better roads, schools, EMS and it wouldn’t raise taxes a bit.  The Fed would have to build less arnaments, keep the fleet at home a little more, close some overseas bases.

With the withdrawal of Kucinich, Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate left with either party. All the others say they will keep their “options open,” including even the nuking of Iran. This includes the allegedly anti-war Barack Obama.

Ron Paul stands for non-violence both abroad, and at home. Libertarianism essentially means not initiating force against other human beings.

I agree that Ron Paul is not a “great communicator.” So what? I’m sick to the point of nausea with scripted, polished, packaged candidates who couldn’t come up with an original thought if their lives depended on it.

If Ron Paul’s communications skills matched his rhetoric and positions, he would probably be a more viable candidate.  But he is such a bad communicator that it affects how people “hear” him, even if they ultimately agree with him.

Re JS’s comment vis-a-vis McCain vs. Hillary, I disagree.  It is almost a certainty that ANY Dem candidate will beat ANY GOP candidate, no matter who it is.  As long as McCain keeps beating war drums - and promising 100 years in Iraq (70% of Americans want out, DESPITE the surge), plus “other wars” - as well as Reaganomics (most Americans know this was bad), permanentizing Bush’s tax cuts (ditto), and a generally bellicose, belligerent and arrogant U.S. approach to the world, there is ZERO chance he can win.

As an aside, with regard to the question of Iraq, Hillary doesn’t need to take an anti-war stance.  In fact, in a seriously ironic circumstance, she can say, “I actually voted for your war, Senator, but I have realized, as has most of the country, that that war is wrong.”  What sweet irony that Hillary’s much-lambasted (and correctly so) vote for the initial resolution to use force could end up being a “trump card” of sorts.

Finally, don’t forget that there is PLENTY of stuff the Dems can use against McCain, including his flip-flop support of Bush, and particularly his vote AGAINST the POW bill.

Peace.

I’m very surprised Ron Paul actually got applause instead of booing and angry remarks as has been the case in previous Republican debates. He really does have some admirable policy platforms. Too bad he’s a racist libertarian because he can inspire people.

I watched the whole thing.  I moaned and i groaned, but i also watched the CNN stream with the “voter reaction graph” superimposed.  If it is to be believed, McCain is in for some rough patches against Romney.  And one thing’s for sure: they hate each other vehemently.  I’m expecting it to be pretty close between them.

Assuming that HRC’s numbers hold through Super Tuesday, Democrats better be pulling hard for Romney.  I don’t think that Clinton stands a snowball’s chance in hell against McCain.  She can’t take an anti-war stance; she’ll lose the “experience” contest; and if takes on Huckabee for VP we might as well get out the hammer and nails for the coffin.

The funniest part, however, was when Anderson Cooper asked a question based on a Reagan diary entry.  They had the actual diary!  A cut shot to the desk showing the leather bond, gold embossed book and Cooper quipping that he was so awed by its presence that he was afraid to open it.  I would be too; i’ve seen Raiders of the Lost Ark enough times to know better.  I just sat there envisioning Cooper opening the book and the ghosts coming out and melting everyone.  My own imagination turned out to be the highlight of the debate.