Michelle Bachman is an evil cunt

Ron Paul's relevance basically comes down to two things:

1. The influence of money on US politics has created a paradox where the guy who believes the most cult nonsense has some of the sanest policies.

2. His ideology is a good cover for white supremacists

oops nm

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:18 AM, DeadlyTowers said:

Ron Paul's relevance basically comes down to two things:

 

1. The influence of money on US politics has created a paradox where the guy who believes the most cult nonsense has some of the sanest policies.

2. His ideology is a good cover for white supremacists

Well you've convinced me...

WATMM, feeling hopeless about politics? I am organizing something on another forum and its picking up steam with many excited individuals wanting to get involved. Nothing concrete yet but here is my post:

  Quote

I do think there is something we could do , but it would involve a lot of work. We need to formulate a website that is as non-partisan as possible that like a RPG videogame or something tracks stats on every elected official in politics right now, showcasing how similar the two parties are, how corrupt most of them are (financing), and how hypocritical our political system is (republicans spending more than democrats, tax cuts timelines, etc)...

 

Basically a very detailed but extremely clear and honest representation of our political climate. Something that we can spread over the internet. Something that can give people tools to compile data, make graph comparisons, and network with like minded individuals (hopefully sparking new third parties).

If you are interested in joining, please pm me and I will add you to the email mailing list.

cheers

well in fairness he's said some incredibly racist things.

and he's a total nut when it comes to a woman's right to choose.

and gay marriage.

so he can eat a dick.

  On 8/17/2011 at 9:50 AM, disparaissant said:

well in fairness he's said some incredibly racist things.

and he's a total nut when it comes to a woman's right to choose.

and gay marriage.

so he can eat a dick.

he said those things? They were published and edited by other people... and he denies knowing about them or approving them. Plus the text simply doesn't sound like his language... but hey maybe he is. Don't assume he is though.

Being pro-life (like abortion will ever be illegal again) and against gay marriage (like 99% of presidential candidates) is upsetting for sure, no denying. But his policies would benefit blacks today more compared to Obama (drug war).

All signs point to yes.

He seemed to have no problem copping to them in 1996, neither did his staff. But then he becomes a "serious" candidate outside of racist-ass Texas and oops, nope, wasn't me!

Also you must remember he is for state rights, so when he votes no or is against federal laws regarding abortion, that doesn't mean he would be in favor of federal laws banning abortion or gay marriage. It is my understanding he would let everything be governed locally. Which could mean some states would ban abortion and gay marriage, but maybe that wouldn't be so bad... let all the loons flock to the south and let the coasts mold into a more progressive state.

While I agree with that idea in theory, I have a lot of friends that, for whatever reason, live in the south. They're either stuck there because of financial reasons, or just don't want to leave an area that they call home. I'd hate to see them lose out on rights because of unfortunate circumstances, or have to leave an area that they love because they want to be treated as equal fucking human beings.

I like this quote from the article I linked, by another libertarian, Dave Nalle.

  Quote

[Ron Paul is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

That pretty much says it all, I think.

Not really... "As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions."

For someone the author cites so highly he should know Paul is for non-intervention... he is fine with diplomacy and trading. And again what legislation could Paul possibly enact if he deep down hates black people? I'm not defending him directly, I'm simply finding the argument that because some old newspapers paint black people as "dangerous" criminals, we should therefore ignore all the sane ideas he seems to be advocating, ones that would actually free millions of black "criminals."

Also "Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus"

http://www.rlc.org/2011/02/20/history-of-our-movement/

lol...

yeah i dont really care who said it, he's probably a massive asshat, but he's still right.

but there's no point in arguing this, you're obviously all in for paul, and you're not going to convince me to vote for him if you paid me, so whatever. he's made his views clear, whether or not he can or will do anything about it is irrelevant to me, his opinions are utterly abhorrent and when you take into account the general right wing nature of even a democratic majority in congress, the simple fact that he probably wouldnt veto a lot of the utterly insane stuff that people would try to pass is enough for me to never be able to consider him as a serious candidate, period. end of. no point in arguing this further.

plus he's ancient

  On 8/17/2011 at 10:40 AM, disparaissant said:

yeah i dont really care who said it, he's probably a massive asshat, but he's still right.

 

but there's no point in arguing this, you're obviously all in for paul, and you're not going to convince me to vote for him if you paid me, so whatever. he's made his views clear, whether or not he can or will do anything about it is irrelevant to me, his opinions are utterly abhorrent and when you take into account the general right wing nature of even a democratic majority in congress, the simple fact that he probably wouldnt veto a lot of the utterly insane stuff that people would try to pass is enough for me to never be able to consider him as a serious candidate, period. end of. no point in arguing this further.

 

plus he's ancient

lol settle down... Ron Paul advocates 9/11 truth stuff, so does Richard Clarke... does that mean they factually think 9/11 was a cover up... no. Yet this guy thinks that idea is reprehensible... interesting... I wonder how active this Republican Liberty Caucus is these days. Dave Nalle joined in 2009...

And it is non interventionism...

  Quote

Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism".

Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States' interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.

Non-intervention, sometimes referred to as military non-interventionism, seems to some to be the antithesis of isolationism.^[1]

I just find it interesting that Paul the longest member of this Republican Liberty Caucus would be slandered by the most recent head... "terrible basis for national policy" and he decides to become the head of the caucus that respects and admires him on their own website?

seems a little weird to me, but yeah you are right no point in arguing... lets just say policy wise Paul makes more sense than any other GOPer and in many ways Obama. But he is not a perfect candidate by any means... I'm not gonna listen to this Dave Nalle though, until I read more about him... Im surprised you put so much stock in his opinion, just because a blogger says he's a real libertarian.

hmm this article could be a bunch of bs

http://www.dailypaul...l-under-the-bus

http://www.fontcraft.com/campaign/

"real libertarian" dave nalle... also a supporter of John Mccain!

seems to me the liberty caucus got neo conned

I think the fact that you're focusing on who said that is kind of telling tbh. I really don't care, I think it was pretty funny that someone from his former organisation would trash him so thoroughly. I'm sure he's an asshat with equally abhorrent views, that doesn't really matter to me.

In any case, non-interventionism sounds nice. Score one for Paul. I don't think it's a strategy that will allow him to be elected, given the military-industrial-oedipal complex we have going on in this country, but whatever. I can get behind that.

So that's Ron Paul, 1.

But, I abhor racism, believe strongly that the federal government needs to protect a woman's right to choose, believe that queers everywhere should allow to marry other queers, and I abhor racism. I also think Paul's economic theories are whacky at best. So that's what, -3 total now? Yeah, sorry. Not gonna get my vote.

A lot of people who claim to be liberal tell me I should vote for Ron Paul, actually. And come to think of it, every single one of them is straight, white, and male.

Not really meant as a dig, just an observation. I have priorities and I'm not going to throw them out on the off chance that Paul could end the incredibly-lucrative-to-big-business wars on drugs and terror. I just don't think he could possibly pull it off, and the damage he would do otherwise would be absolutely catastrophic to the less-privileged people in this country.

Also he'll be 77 by the time he takes office, if he's elected. That really should be a concern to his supporters, given that the changes they claim he would enact are so utterly contrary to the status quo it would certainly take more than one term for him to pull it off. Does he really have more than one term in him?

  On 8/17/2011 at 10:08 AM, disparaissant said:

All signs point to yes.

He seemed to have no problem copping to them in 1996, neither did his staff. But then he becomes a "serious" candidate outside of racist-ass Texas and oops, nope, wasn't me!

Whether or not he's personally racist there's a reason he appeals to white supremacists - his right-wing libertarian rhetoric provides pseudo-intellectual support for not viewing civil rights legislation in context; he's opposed to social programs, while silent about government-backed land monopolies.

Indeed. I really don't get why so many people back him unequivocally.

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:52 AM, disparaissant said:

A lot of people who claim to be liberal tell me I should vote for Ron Paul, actually. And come to think of it, every single one of them is straight, white, and male.

 

Not really meant as a dig, just an observation. I have priorities and I'm not going to throw them out on the off chance that Paul could end the incredibly-lucrative-to-big-business wars on drugs and terror. I just don't think he could possibly pull it off, and the damage he would do otherwise would be absolutely catastrophic to the less-privileged people in this country.

voting for ron paul sounds pretty reasonable to me considering the only opportunity to do that will be during the republican primary

hahaha yesss

By the way I should point out that when I said Paul was the sanest of the Republican candidates, it was in no way an endorsement of his batshit crazy libertarian ideology. It's just that the others are even crazier. Although at least Bachman is open about her homophobia. It's just weird that she married a gay dude.

  On 8/15/2011 at 2:57 PM, BCM said:

  On 8/15/2011 at 2:08 PM, viscosity said:

what's the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality?

 

 

what's the fucking evolutionary purpose of mustard? what's the evolutionary purpose of snooker? what's the evolutinary purpose of your idiotic question?

Mustard and snooker were invented by man, not generated by evolution. Are you therefore suggesting that homosexuality is a product of nurture and not nature.

;-p

angry flail.

  On 8/17/2011 at 11:58 AM, disparaissant said:

Indeed. I really don't get why so many people back him unequivocally.

because logically according to the consistency of his voting record, even if he was president he wouldn't be able to enact most of the shit you people are freaking out about. its not about becoming libertarian. its about not voting for the idiots that have time and time again degraded the average american's quality of life.

but i see your point. i guess i'm not voting again.

ron paul reminds me of our own foreign minister lieberman, just the opposite political spectrum, lieberman too offers controversial but seemingly reasonable and simple-to-understand solutions to israel's troubles. he's been a total failure of a foreign minister, a bulldozer that doesn't really understand how things work, just sticking to his ideologies, the fact that feeds his supporters somehow.

this quote from michael haneke interview stuck with me: "The idea can be good or bad, but once it becomes absolute, in all cases, it becomes dangerous. It becomes very strict, and can be used for radicalism."