Ron Paul climbs in the polls

ron paul climbs in the poles.

fucking A

latest reports seem to indicate that ron paul is, indeed, still climbing in the poles

lol

  On 1/5/2012 at 6:04 PM, chaosmachine said:

 

ron paul climbs in the poles.

1/3 successes on the ron paul shop, good job

Go up to chicks in bars & say hey babe, hows about we pretend you're Ron Paul & you climb my pole

this will work guaranteed

  On 1/5/2012 at 9:02 PM, Awepittance said:

good job

thx awepittance, grate job on the thread asswell.

I don't know... it looks to me that he is climbing ON the polls, not IN them...

i don't know how credible this source is, but here's an interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters:

[youtubehd]THkz9btU0zY[/youtubehd]

around 4:10 is where it gets interesting.

also, only Paul and Romney are eligible for the Virginia primary election....this is interesting...

  On 1/6/2012 at 12:10 AM, iep said:

  On 1/5/2012 at 9:02 PM, Awepittance said:

good job

 

thx awepittance, grate job on the thread asswell.

im genuinely curious, besides trolling in previous pages of this thread where you would simply write 'lol' after something that wasn't funny, what was the point (of course besides emanating twattery)?

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:03 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i don't know how credible this source is, but here's an interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters:

 

 

[youtubehd]THkz9btU0zY[/youtubehd]

 

around 4:10 is where it gets interesting.

 

 

also, only Paul and Romney are eligible for the Virginia primary election....this is interesting...

talking head news guy who doesn't actually know what racism is equivocates madly.

i dunno man i don't think going "but EVERY candidate gets called a racist!" is credible or interesting. i think pretty much everyone knows he didn't actually write the newsletters, but his name is on them, and his story about them has changed so many times it's hard to actually believe that he didn't know what was being published when it was being published. it took him over a decade to actually own up to the fact that there is some vile stuff in there.

also every republican candidate is pretty racist. of course they're going to be called such. and to actually try to make equivalent glenn beck's schizophrenic rantings with legitimate criticism of people whose platforms would disproportionally harm people of colour is absolutely ludicrous.

nah, i dont care about the argument prior to the 4 min mark. did you watch that part? i had no idea.

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:17 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/6/2012 at 12:10 AM, iep said:

  On 1/5/2012 at 9:02 PM, Awepittance said:

good job

 

thx awepittance, grate job on the thread asswell.

 

im genuinely curious, besides trolling in previous pages of this thread where you would simply write 'lol' after something that wasn't funny, what was the point (of course besides emanating twattery)?

i love dry humor, but when it comes to twattiness i like it wet

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:56 PM, iep said:

i love dry humor, but when it comes to twattiness i like it wet

gonna havta put another reverb on that twattiness there

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:03 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

also, only Paul and Romney are eligible for the Virginia primary election....this is interesting...

Does that mean no more awesomeness from Newt? The stuff that comes out of that guy's mouth is a comedy goldmine.

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:49 PM, disparaissant said:

  On 1/14/2012 at 9:03 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

i don't know how credible this source is, but here's an interesting take on Paul's racist newsletters:

 

 

[youtubehd]THkz9btU0zY[/youtubehd]

 

around 4:10 is where it gets interesting.

 

 

also, only Paul and Romney are eligible for the Virginia primary election....this is interesting...

talking head news guy who doesn't actually know what racism is equivocates madly.

i dunno man i don't think going "but EVERY candidate gets called a racist!" is credible or interesting. i think pretty much everyone knows he didn't actually write the newsletters, but his name is on them, and his story about them has changed so many times it's hard to actually believe that he didn't know what was being published when it was being published. it took him over a decade to actually own up to the fact that there is some vile stuff in there.

also every republican candidate is pretty racist. of course they're going to be called such. and to actually try to make equivalent glenn beck's schizophrenic rantings with legitimate criticism of people whose platforms would disproportionally harm people of colour is absolutely ludicrous.

i think a lot of this isn't even about 'what if ron paul gets elected' its more about 'wow someone is injecting discussions about civil liberties and anti war sentiment into a race where there otherwise would be absolutely no discussion of it', Its obvious to anyone even mildly following this primary that the racist newsletters are being used as a last ditch very desperate attempt to sap energy away from Ron Paul. They are inexcusable, disgusting and very much a generic product of the time they were written following along with racial sentiments of conservatives during that time.

but im totally open to talking about ron paul's negatives, just as Obama voters should be open to looking and examining his negatives (instead of downplaying or ignoring them)

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/16/who_are_the_victims_of_civil_liberties_assaults_and_endless_war/

the end of this article has a really good, but epic debate between Glenn Greenwald and a woman who writes for the Nation repeatedly attacking Ron Paul

if you can handle the poor audio quality its worth watching.

  On 1/17/2012 at 12:27 AM, Awepittance said:

i think a lot of this isn't even about 'what if ron paul gets elected' its more about 'wow someone is injecting discussions about civil liberties and anti war sentiment into a race where there otherwise would be absolutely no discussion of it',

racist newsletters are bad, but consider that his stance on drug legalization or decriminalization, if it was actually enforced, would considerably alleviate inner city black communities crippled by the drug trade and the subsequent imprisonments as a result.

edit: Also, since this is MLK jr. day, look up COINTELPRO. See what activities they carried out illegally. See who funded and supported this operation. (Hint: the name of the party don't matter, and the reforms they "carried out" on the surface bely their real intentions. This isn't conspiracy nut theory. This is established fact.)

Now see what current activities are carried out that now have legality to them, and compare. See who supports them.

My my, have the times changed?

I gotta quote this last part of the Greenwald article, because it is too damn awesome to ignore-

  Quote

Leaving aside the fact that (as I detail in the discussion with Pollitt), numerous women and people of color have made the same points about the vital benefits of Paul’s candidacy — voices which these accusers tellingly ignore and silence — these accusations are pure projection. Those who were operating from such privilege would not seek to prioritize issues of war and civil liberties; that’s because it isn’t white progressives and their families who are directly harmed by these heinous policies. The opposite is true: it’s very easy, very tempting, for those driven by this type of “privilege” — for non-Muslims in particular– to decide that these issues are not urgent, that Endless War and civil liberties abuses by a President should not be disqualifying or can be tolerated, precisely because these non-Muslim progressive accusers are not acutely affected by them. The kind of “privilege” these accusers raise would cause one to de-prioritize and accept civil liberties abuses, drone slaughter, indefinite detention and the like (i.e, do what they themselves do), not demand that significant attention be paid to them when assessing political choices.

As I noted the other day, it isn’t white males being indefinitely detained, rendered, and having their houses and cars exploded with drones — the victims of those policies are people like Lakhdar Boumediene, or Gulet Mohamed, or Jose Padilla, or Awal Gul, or Sami al-Haj, or Binyam Mohamed, or Murat Kurnaz, or Afghan villagers, or Pakistani families, or Yemeni teenagers. In order to get the full depth of the oppression and injustice of these ongoing War on Terror policies, one has to do things like listen to this amazing — and tragically rare — interview conducted by Chris Hayes this weekend with Boumediene, as the former GITMO detainee explained in Arabic how his life was devastated by indefinite detention. It’s easy to convince yourself that these abuses are not an urgent priority if, like those above-linked accusers, your non-Muslim privilege (to use their accusatory terminology) enables you to be shielded from their harms.

This is the primary point made so brilliantly by Falguni Sheth, the Political Theory and Philosophy Professor, in arguing that white progressives throwing around these accusations are themselves the ones guilty of it by virtue of their willingness to subordinate these issues to partisan gain — in other words, no longer desiring that these abuses be vested with prime political priority now that it’s their Party and their President guilty of them:

But HERE FOLKS! I am a brown woman (in case my bio didn’t clue you into that), and I am downright livid at policies passed during the Obama administration (which a number of folks will attest that I anticipated before the 2008 election), which are even worse than expected. I am as livid with progressives who affect a casual? studied? indifference to the Administration’s repeated support for warrantless wiretapping (remember Obama’s vote during the 2008 election season when he took a break in campaigning to return to Washington to vote for the

renewal of FISA

; for his support of the Justice Department’s withholding of evidence (and even habeas corpus) from detainees on grounds of national security; his commitment to indefinite detention (NDAA was not the first time it’s arisen. We saw his support in the gesture to move Gitmo detainees to a federal prison in Illinois—with only a casual suggestion that they might receive civilian trials—only to watch it die quickly under even modest resistance. Guantanamo is still open with detainees languishing); the expansion of troops into Afghanistan in the first part of his term; the unceasing drone attacks in Pakistan, etc. . . .

Here’s my other question: Why does this have to turn into a “guilt by association” debate? Why can’t we discuss the questions that are being raised as serious and important questions, rather than referendums on voters’ or pundits’ moral character? I don’t have to like Ron Paul (and why do we need to LIKE our politicians?). I don’t have to have dinner with him. He doesn’t need to be a friend. He is raising the questions that every other liberal and progressive and feminist (yes, including you, Katha) should be raising and forcing the Democrats to address. As Greenwald has pointed out, these issues only become outrage-worthy when the Republicans are spearheading human rights violations, because it gives the libs and progs a lever by which to claim political superiority. The silence on the Democrats’ record of human rights violations is deafening. And they’re more than cherries on a blighted tree. They’re dead bodies on the blighted conscience of Americans.

As I said the other day, I don’t run around accusing progressives who have different political priorities than I do of being driven by racial and religious bias. I genuinely recognize that there are all sorts of benign and even noble reasons why one might have different political priorities or might even value partisan loyalty more than I do. But there is one thing I know for certain: to smear with this kind of innuendo those insisting on the prioritization of war and civil liberties issues or devoting oneself to these causes is indescribably irrational and reckless. One driven by racial or other forms of privilege would seek to de-prioritize or ignore these issues, not highlight them. Indeed, a primary reason why these fully bipartisan policies of Endless War and civil liberties assaults largely go unchallenged is precisely because their primary victims are anything but privileged. That’s exactly why these issues are not a distraction from the cause of equality; they are an embodiment of it.

Is he still running??? last time i heard a bunch of them dropped out.

regardless of whether he drops out or not, these issues need to continue to stay in the political dialogue. Like Greenwald stated, its not about how Paul is the perfect, moral embodiment of what he espouses, but how civil liberties and the mil-ind. complex are finally trickling into political discussion on the right. Oddly enough, these same issues seem to be evaporating from a Left, at least in terms of media exposure.

the most obvious case of censorship yet. jesus christ, how disgusting.

[youtubehd]7tbNBnBe2SI[/youtubehd]

and here's another (ron paul was polling at 23% when this graphic was presented):

  On 1/17/2012 at 2:54 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

regardless of whether he drops out or not, these issues need to continue to stay in the political dialogue. Like Greenwald stated, its not about how Paul is the perfect, moral embodiment of what he espouses, but how civil liberties and the mil-ind. complex are finally trickling into political discussion on the right. Oddly enough, these same issues seem to be evaporating from a Left, at least in terms of media exposure.

  On 1/22/2012 at 5:44 AM, Hoodie said:

the most obvious case of censorship yet. jesus christ, how disgusting.

 

[youtubehd]7tbNBnBe2SI[/youtubehd]

 

and here's another (ron paul was polling at 23% when this graphic was presented):

 

Fucking ELITISIT LIBERAL MEDIA

I've had many a heated discussion with a close family member about politics...it's become so bad on certain issues that we're not even on the same planet anymore, particularly our perspectives on the media. Like millions of other Americans, he actually believes the media is liberal. Right-wingers think that Fox is acceptable by the default logic that all other stations are bad. Then they listen to talk radio and read unsourced op-ed's edited to look like news articles on sites like NewsMax. The amount of misinformation and doublespeak embraced by voters, particularly "politically active" citizens, is substanstial. I've argued that the cable news outlets don't even care, it's all about ratings, therefore you could see the same commentators and journalists running Obama puff pieces in 2008 now hyping GOP candidates now. They did a complete 180 on Iraq coverage once the war became a quagmire. But they don't acknowledge these facts, and instead embrace historical revisionism and fear-mongering. They pick a handful of small specific incidents on CNN or MSNBC and go "see! those fucking smarmy Obama-loving liberal fucks, they hate America, they don't get it. They shit on middle-America!" The same issues Bush supported they now suddenly "have serious problems" with. They feel like America is being ruined, and the few anti-tax, anti-Federal libertarian/paleo-conservative people that had been saying that pre-2008...fuck them, they're too soft of war and social issues. The same GOPers that watched in disappointment when Clinton didn't get impeached for lying about an affair. Now they cheered and admired Newt Gingrich, a man unashamed about open marriage and multiple divorces. Hell, they booed the fucking Golden Rule in a debate last week - that's the point we're at now, Christians booeing the core teachings of Jesus.

Here we are engaging in debate and discussion and most GOP primary voters don't even care. Hell most don't even know about these specific issues, like the racist newsletters. They get boners for drilling oil, fighting the Federal government, bashing China, and bombing the middle east. The ones with even half a brain and half a heart are yelled at and brushed aside once they touch on anything beyond vague populist propoganda the Republican party is embracing.

So congratulations America, you're openly embracing delusional idiocy as the de facto method of political involvement. All because it's easier than reading multiple sources, thinking for a few minutes, and rationalizing thoughts to form your own fucking opinions. No, you rather spend those hours watching dancing with the stars or adding a yahoo news comment about Obama being a socialist Kenyan manchurian candidate or some other godawful, brainless bullshit.

[youtubehd]4zyo10lusCY[/youtubehd]