RON PAUL!

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Done in 4.

This was somewhat news?

/I guess it would be for the children supporting him

But don't you dare imply that he's racist.

To recap-

Romney-rich on supervillian levels
Gingrich-evil on supervillian levels
Ron Paul-Ron Paul on supervillian levels
Santorum-Eww

You know, it doesn't really make a difference either way. Either he's a disgusting racist, or he's so stupid that he lets his company put out newsletters with his name on them with racist stuff printed in them.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Disagree: Many of RON PAUL's! under 30 supporters don't really understand the coded language he is using, because they don't remember the battles over desegregation and bussing beyond what they read in high school text books.

Those of us in our late 40's and early 50's do.

We need an autocorrect function for submitted headlines that changes "I" to "subby" and changes verbs accordingly.

/off-topicky

I'm sure his supporters, well off young white males that thing the greatest threat to the world is affirmative action will care a great deal. Non story.

Cagey B: You know, it doesn't really make a difference either way. Either he's a disgusting racist, or he's so stupid that he lets his company put out newsletters with his name on them with racist stuff printed in them.

Worse, he claimed at one point that he never even read them, so he had no idea what was in them.

Philip Francis Queeg: But don't you dare imply that he's racist.

As we all know, the real racists in these situations are the ones who notice the racist statements. RON PAUL was just testing us to flush out the true racists. In conclusion, RON PAUL is the greatest hero of the civil rights movement.

MFAWG: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Disagree: Many of RON PAUL's! under 30 supporters don't really understand the coded language he is using, because they don't remember the battles over desegregation and bussing beyond what they read in high school text books.

Those of us in our late 40's and early 50's do.

I agree they don't understand what "Southern strategy" means or the dog whistle of "State's rights". They don't understand the "state rights" was just a euphemism for states being allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like confederates argued state's rights so the could have slaves.

Ron Paul did not see that coming.

There were people that still held on to the notion that he wasn't involved with a newsletter put out by a company called "Ron Paul & Associates"?

Corvus: MFAWG: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Disagree: Many of RON PAUL's! under 30 supporters don't really understand the coded language he is using, because they don't remember the battles over desegregation and bussing beyond what they read in high school text books.

Those of us in our late 40's and early 50's do.

I agree they don't understand what "Southern strategy" means or the dog whistle of "State's rights". They don't understand the "state rights" was just a euphemism for states being allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like confederates argued state's rights so the could have slaves.

I have a friend in his early 30s who campaigned for RON PAUL on '08; he claims that RON PAUL's ideas are good for the black community because RON PAUL will get rid of the harsh drug penalties put in place in New York by the racist Democrat Nelson Rockefeller.

/Granted, Rockefeller would certainly be considered a RINO by todays standards.
//But yeah, he'd never really paid attention to politics before '08.

Corvus: MFAWG: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Disagree: Many of RON PAUL's! under 30 supporters don't really understand the coded language he is using, because they don't remember the battles over desegregation and bussing beyond what they read in high school text books.

Those of us in our late 40's and early 50's do.

I agree they don't understand what "Southern strategy" means or the dog whistle of "State's rights". They don't understand the "state rights" was just a euphemism for states being allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like confederates argued state's rights so the could have slaves.

I turned 30 in October, and sadly, I have not had access to historical textbooks, people of the age cohort born with the innate understandings my feeble young brain cannot comprehend, the internet, or rational thought.

So I vote RONPAUL.

// or, perhaps you don't credit us whippersnappers with the intelligence you yourself had but a decade ago
// I do agree that we're quickly forgetting about those dog whistles
// I disagree vehemently that it's about what year you were born

IXI Jim IXI: zedster: In 1981, a lawyer tried to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan who would later go on to found the white supremacist, neo-Nazi website, Stormfront. Black was charged along with two other Klansmen with planning to violently overthrow the small Caribbean country of Dominica in what they called "Operation Red Dog." While a judge refused to subpoena Paul, Don Black would come back to haunt him many years later. (new window)

Well, those robes do make a person look like a ghost...

I was down south once, and I was invited to a costume party, and I rarely go to them. I went to one when I was younger. I went in my underwear shorts, and I have varicose veins. I went as a roadmap. And I figure what the hell, it's Halloween, I'll go as a ghost. I take a sheet off the bed and I throw it over my head, and I go to the party. And you have to get the picture, I'm walking down the street in a deep southern town, I have a white sheet over my head. And a car pulls up and 3 guys with white sheets say "Get in." So I figure there guys going to the party... as ghosts, and I get into the car, and I see were not going to the party, and I tell them. They say, "Well, we have to go pick up the Grand Dragon." All of a sudden it hits me, down south, white sheets, the Grand Dragon, I put two and two together. I figure there's a guy going to the party dressed as a dragon. All of a sudden a big guy enters the car, and I'm sitting there between four clansmen, four big-armed men, and the door's locked, and I'm petrified, I'm trying to pass desperately, y'know, I'm saying "Y'all" and "Grits," y'know, I must have said "grits" 50 times, y'know. They ask me a question, and I say "Oh, grits, grits." And next to me is the leader and you can tell he's the leader, cause he's the one wearing contour sheets, y'know. And they drive me to an empty field, and I gave myself away, cause they asked for donations and everybody there gave cash. When it came to me, I said "I pledge 50 dollars." They knew immediately. They took my hood off and threw a rope around my neck, and they decided to hang me. And suddenly my whole life passed before my eyes. I saw myself as a kid again, in Kansas, going to school, swimming at the swimming hole, and fishing, frying up a mess o' Catfish, going down to the general store, getting a piece of gingham for Emmy-Lou. And I realise it's not my life. They're gonna hang me in 2 minutes, the wrong life is passing before my eyes. And I spoke to them, and I was really eloquent, I said "Fellas... this country can't survive, unless we love one another regardless of race, creed or colour." And they were so moved by my words, not only did they cut me down and let me go, but that night, I sold them 2000 dollars worth of Israel Bonds.

Seth'n'Spectrum: We need an autocorrect function for submitted headlines that changes "I" to "subby" and changes verbs accordingly.

/off-topicky

Or admins with a 6th grade reading/ spelling level

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

What do you mean? Think of how red all the college students' faces who work countless hours for Paul because he wants to legalize drugs will be when they find out he's really just really rad klan member.

Meanwhile, the Romney team's projection of Spanish as a "ghetto language" onto Newt gets a free pass because even though the ad said Romney "approved the message", he didn't really "approve" the message, and no one seems to think anything of that tacit admission of violating at least the spirit of the law.

/not saying Paul isn't a race baiter, just saying....
//and it's not a coincidence this story runs today

James!: HighOnCraic: Corvus: MFAWG: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Number of votes this will cost him: 0
Chance he had of winning anyway: 0

Disagree: Many of RON PAUL's! under 30 supporters don't really understand the coded language he is using, because they don't remember the battles over desegregation and bussing beyond what they read in high school text books.

Those of us in our late 40's and early 50's do.

I agree they don't understand what "Southern strategy" means or the dog whistle of "State's rights". They don't understand the "state rights" was just a euphemism for states being allowed to discriminate based on race. Just like confederates argued state's rights so the could have slaves.

I have a friend in his early 30s who campaigned for RON PAUL on '08; he claims that RON PAUL's ideas are good for the black community because RON PAUL will get rid of the harsh drug penalties put in place in New York by the racist Democrat Nelson Rockefeller.

/Granted, Rockefeller would certainly be considered a RINO by todays standards.
//But yeah, he'd never really paid attention to politics before '08.

Never mind that RON PAUL's policies wouldn't do a damn thing about New York's drug penalties.

And never mind that while many New Yorkers might be open to the idea of legalizing weed, the idea of legalizing crack, cocaine, and heroin sounds absolutely crazy to those of us who remember the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

Karma Curmudgeon: Meanwhile, the Romney team's projection of Spanish as a "ghetto language" onto Newt gets a free pass because even though the ad said Romney "approved the message", he didn't really "approve" the message, and no one seems to think anything of that tacit admission of violating at least the spirit of the law.

/not saying Paul isn't a race baiter, just saying....
//and it's not a coincidence this story runs today

BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Karma Curmudgeon: Meanwhile, the Romney team's projection of Spanish as a "ghetto language" onto Newt gets a free pass because even though the ad said Romney "approved the message", he didn't really "approve" the message, and no one seems to think anything of that tacit admission of violating at least the spirit of the law.

/not saying Paul isn't a race baiter, just saying....
//and it's not a coincidence this story runs today

From the fact-checking article:

In his speech to the National Federation of Republican Women, Gingrich advocated making English the official language, a position he still holds, and added: "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

He did not explicitly call Spanish a ghetto language. But at the time, the remark was widely taken to mean Spanish, overwhelmingly the main foreign language spoken in the United States and the primary language of many immigrants.

Gingrich recognized as much when, in response to a Hispanic backlash against his remark, he made an online video days after the speech in which he more or less apologized for his choice of words and for producing "a bad feeling within the Latino community."

Romney may have stretched the message a little, but not too much.

Gingrich's spin was ridiculous: "It's taken totally out of context.... I did not say it about Spanish. I said in general about all languages. We are better for children to learn English in general, period."

But Romney should take responsibility for the ad.

Philip Francis Queeg: Karma Curmudgeon: Meanwhile, the Romney team's projection of Spanish as a "ghetto language" onto Newt gets a free pass because even though the ad said Romney "approved the message", he didn't really "approve" the message, and no one seems to think anything of that tacit admission of violating at least the spirit of the law.

/not saying Paul isn't a race baiter, just saying....
//and it's not a coincidence this story runs today

BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Like Sarah Palin, he meant "All of them." (See above)

Philip Francis Queeg: BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Jive?

Point taken. Not implicitly trying to give Newt a pass on that either.

This is all pretty simple. As a devout libertarian, Paul expressly stated that he thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, and he believes that people should have the right to engage in racial prejudice if they want to. That's entirely consistent with his general philosophy regarding minimizing government intrusion into realtions between people.

So, if they guy is in favor of letting bigots be bigots if they want to be, why would it come as any surprise that he's happy to let people writing for his newsletter express whatever bigoted ideas they want to? I don't think anyone is taking the position that Paul actually wrote the articles in question; they're just questioning whether he agrees with the racist sentiments contained therein. But the question of whether he subjectively agrees with them is largely irrelevant -- his philosophy is that, even if he personally disagrees with them, he supports the rights of others to act on those sentiments. *He* might not harbor the racist thoughts or intend to act on them, but his own philopsophy requires him to stand by and freely allow others to do so.

So maybe he's not racist, but his philosophy compels him to not oppose others' racism.

Karma Curmudgeon: Philip Francis Queeg: BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Jive?

Point taken. Not implicitly trying to give Newt a pass on that either.

You know who ELSE spoke jive?

HighOnCraic: Philip Francis Queeg: Karma Curmudgeon: Meanwhile, the Romney team's projection of Spanish as a "ghetto language" onto Newt gets a free pass because even though the ad said Romney "approved the message", he didn't really "approve" the message, and no one seems to think anything of that tacit admission of violating at least the spirit of the law.

/not saying Paul isn't a race baiter, just saying....
//and it's not a coincidence this story runs today

BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Like Sarah Palin, he meant "All of them." (See above)

We are better for children to learn English in general, period.

Was it a bilingual education that cause him to slaughter the English language like that?

HighOnCraic: Karma Curmudgeon: Philip Francis Queeg: BTW what "ghetto language" was Newt referring to, if not Spanish?

Jive?

Point taken. Not implicitly trying to give Newt a pass on that either.

You know who ELSE spoke jive?

[www.avitable.com image 640x399]

My momma didn't raise no dummies. I dug her rap.

Uzzah: This is all pretty simple. As a devout libertarian, Paul expressly stated that he thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, and he believes that people should have the right to engage in racial prejudice if they want to. That's entirely consistent with his general philosophy regarding minimizing government intrusion into realtions between people.

So, if they guy is in favor of letting bigots be bigots if they want to be, why would it come as any surprise that he's happy to let people writing for his newsletter express whatever bigoted ideas they want to? I don't think anyone is taking the position that Paul actually wrote the articles in question; they're just questioning whether he agrees with the racist sentiments contained therein. But the question of whether he subjectively agrees with them is largely irrelevant -- his philosophy is that, even if he personally disagrees with them, he supports the rights of others to act on those sentiments. *He* might not harbor the racist thoughts or intend to act on them, but his own philopsophy requires him to stand by and freely allow others to do so.

So maybe he's not racist, but his philosophy compels him to not oppose others' racism.

And it appears that his philosophy to also says that it's OK for him to personally, financially profit from the racist writings. In fact he probably has a patriotic obligation to profit off of vicious racism. Why haven't any of the other candidates love freedom enough to make money publishing viciously racist newsletters? That's the real question.

RON PAUL supporters say the same thing whether the media ignores Paul or exposes his batshiat crazy ideas: "the Media is just scared of Ron Paul and all the good he could do for the country. This is proof you should vote for him!"

ron paul had some racist newsletters over 20 years ago that he said he didn't read. Media verdict: racist
Santorum, and Newt openly say racist things with documented proof this year. Media verdict: not racist

Let's assume for a moment that Ron Paul didn't know about these newletters until ten years after they were written, as he nows says.

That means that he started a company, named after himself, which then wrote a newsletter, again named after himself. Said newsletter then repeatedly wrote racist articles attributed to himself, but he never knew any of it. Why would a man who is so out of touch with his own affairs be entrusted with the federal government?

Uzzah: This is all pretty simple. As a devout libertarian, Paul expressly stated that he thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, and he believes that people should have the right to engage in racial prejudice if they want to. That's entirely consistent with his general philosophy regarding minimizing government intrusion into realtions between people.

That would make sense if the Jim Crow South existed without ridiculously oppressive state laws. Why do libertarians have such a blind spot about the way state governments intruded into relations between people before the civil rights movement?

For example this law in Mississippi:

"Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

No one would suggest a law outlawing Ron Paul's newsletter today--that would be a gross violation of the First Amedment. But in the 60s, a newsletter denouncing segregation would have been illegal--also a gross violation of the First Amedment, but libertarians are overwhelming "meh" about such issues.

And let's not forget the state-sponsored spy organization that existed back then:

As the state's public relations campaign failed to dampen rising civil rights activism, the commission put people to work as a de facto intelligence organization trying to identify those citizens in Mississippi who might be working for civil rights, be allied with communists, or just tipped state surveillance if their associations, activities, and travels did not seem to conform to segregationist norms. Swept up on lists of people under suspicion by such broad criteria were tens of thousands of African-American and white professionals, teachers, and government workers in agricultural and other agencies, churches and community organizations. The "commission penetrated most of the major civil-rights organizations in Mississippi, even planting clerical workers in the offices of activist attorneys. It informed police about planned marches or boycotts and encouraged police harassment of African-Americans who cooperated with civil rights groups. Its agents obstructed voter registration by blacks and harassed African-Americans seeking to attend white schools."[3]

The commission's activities included attempting to preserve the state's segregation and Jim Crow laws, opposing school integration, and ensuring portrayal of the state "in a positive light." Among its first employees were a former FBI agent and a transfer from the state highway patrol. "The agency outwardly extolled racial harmony, but it secretly paid investigators and spies to gather both information and misinformation."[4] Staff of the commission worked closely with, and in some cases funded, the notorious White Citizens' Councils. From 1960 to 1964, it secretly funded the White Citizens Council, a private organization, with $190,000 of state funds.[5] The commission also used its intelligence-gathering capabilities to assist in the defense of Byron De La Beckwith, murderer of Medgar Evers, during his second trial. Sov-Com investigator Andy Hopkins provided De La Beckwith's attorneys with information on the potential jurors, which the attorneys used during the selection process.[6]
. . .
The records also revealed the state's complicity in the murders of three civil rights workers at Philadelphia, Mississippi; its investigator A.L. Hopkins passed on information about the workers, including the car license number of a new civil rights worker, to the Commission, which passed the information to the Sheriff of Neshoba County, who was implicated in the murders.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

How can any rational person look at the Jim Crow South and claim that there was minimal government intrusion into realtions between people? When the state goverment says, "You can only use THIS water fountain!" and the Federal goverment says, "Use any water fountain you want!" which one is providing more freedom?