Sirota: Romney = Obama, and Paul is just as right. (updated)

[ProSense]

The everyday bigotry we ignore

Some of Paul's stances are odious. But our racist drug war and Islamophobic invasions are equally offensive

<...>

The other camp tends to acknowledge those ugly truths about Paul, but then points out that the Texas congressman has been one of the only politicians 1) fighting surveillance, indefinite detention and due-process-free assassination policies almost exclusively aimed at minorities; 2) opposing wars that often seem motivated by rank Islamophobia; and 3) railing against the bigotry of a drug war that disproportionately targets people of color. Summarizing this part of Paul’s record, the Atlantic Monthly’s Conor Friedersdorf has written: “When it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies” affecting the world today, “Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them (while) his opponents are often on the wrong side.”

So which side is right? Both of them, and thanks to that powerful oxymoron, Paul has become a mirror reflecting back our own problematic biases. Specifically, his candidacy is showing that the conventional definition of intolerable bigotry is disturbingly narrow — and embarrassingly selective.

This reality is best demonstrated by those voters who say they detest Paul not because of his extreme economic ideas, but because they feel his record represents an unacceptable form of racism. These folks will likely tell you that their alleged commitment to policies promoting racial equality has moved them to support Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, politicians who, of course, support bigoted civil liberties atrocities, Islamophobic foreign invasions and a racist drug war.
- more -

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/

Seriously, this is utter bullshit.

Ron Paul Touts Endorsement From Pastor Who Railed Against ‘Sodomites’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002183905

New Batch Of Ron Paul Newsletters Out
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002179317

Ron Paul's Vision For a Free Society Based on Liberty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002176020

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177891

You Know You're A Paulbot When...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184576



Updated to add some excellent comments:

Let me take a deep breath and try this again.

Ron Paul has an ideology that Sirota and other progressives argue benefit minorities. The argument is that he is a true believer in these policy shifts that will humanize and resist the supremacy that is codified and defines in our system. That somehow Paul is the ONLY voice on these issues, and if not the ONLY one much greater in his conviction than, say, President Obama, who, in his 3 years in office, has been blah blah blah.

Ok, the first thing is the read on President Obama is ludicrous. It is wrong, flawed, myopic, and only the position of progressives. Talk to some fucking black people about President Obama. Get out of your own echo chamber and discuss, really discuss, how black people view his first 3 years in office.

Then, if you have any free time, do some actual reporting and research. Don't just read other people who agree with you from other publications... this isn't first year grad school. Do some actual research into these issues and see who else speaks to them, acts on them, fight for them. What you'll discover is that the entire black caucus and the entire progressive win of the dem party has been making these arguments for a generation.

What you'll discover is that the entire process you use to elevate Paul is flawed, based on specious reasoning that privileges your own narrow racially blocked perspective and you foolishing, consistantly, denigrate legitimate concerns that people who make the JBS arguments and the milita arguments actually fing hate black people.

But it is more insidious than that. Ron Paul is incapable of success. Incapable of moving the dialogue the agenda, or the causes he supposedly espouses. He is a carny, incapable of serious weighted discourse. His is not the person to lead these fights, he is not the person to shift the debate. He is incapable of either.

So this desire to somehow accept the mad insane racist neonazi millita type rants that dominate the Paul discourse as a means to an end, never actually reach the end. What we are left with, and I demarcate we as black people from white progressives who love Ron Paul, is all the negative, all the racist bullshit, with NO benefit accrued. We gain nothing but we are forced to embrace this racist piece of shit.

How is that a good plan. How is it somehow in the benefit of people like me to ignore or set aside 30 years of deeply held racist views in order to get NOTHING out of Ron Paul. He benefits me and mine not at all but somehow you think it is a good strategy to embrace him... but wait, you aren't actually arguing to embrace him... just listen to him. Just buy in slightly.

I'd respect you more if you actually have the balls to support the guy you OBVIOUSLY FUCKING SUPPORT, instead of all your backtracking well, yes no maybe so.

Stop writing about him or come out and say what you actually think, that you love this guy.

Ron Paul is a joke. But a racist fucked up joke. And the Progressive movement of the dem party keeps telling it and wondering why black people don't think that shit is funny.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/singleton/undefinedsingleton/#comment-2925761

This has been said before by others, but I will reiterate it. The drug war isn't racist. Rather, it is one of the numerous symptoms of racism. If you treat the symptom and not the disease, the disease will likely persist.

Similarly, the so-called war on terror is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, one of American exceptionalism, one that believes that the U.S., above all other nations, is right in its numerous endeavours. This view rejects the international rule of law and believes the U.S. is free to act on its own accord whenever and wherever it so chooses.

Despite what many Paullyannas, Paul is an ardent support of this point of view. Writing in 2003, he said, "[t]he administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization." He not only outright rejects the UN and other international alliances, he is also opposed to the International Criminal Court. In essence, his rejection of torture, then, is hollow because he doesn't believe in the appropriate recourse for these actions--prosecution under international law.

It's nice to see Sirota at least acknowledging Paul's numerous odious views and actions. Unfortunately, he still merely offers a flaccid defense of Paul in trying to justify his continued support. One must merely scratch the surface and see that Paul's beliefs are so contradictory that they truly have no meaning whatsoever. For instances, he opposes the war in Iraq but supports the U.S. right to go to war, international law be damned; he opposes torture, but also rejects the jurisdiction of the ICC; he opposes the drug war, but is a vehement supporter of a state's right to do whatever it pleases, even in light of the long history of Constitutional abuses by states, etc. etc. etc.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/singleton/undefinedsingleton/#comment-2924821

What Sirota is missing is that Paul's "good" positions grew out of racism as well.

Those of us of a certain age understand that modern-day libertarianism largely grew out of court-ordered de-segregation and the federal government forcing states to give up Jim Crow laws, back in the 1950s and 1960s. A particular flash point came in 1957, when President Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to enable desegregation. A lot of right-wing craziness grew out of that, including the private "militia" movement.

From that slice of our history also grew the libertarian position -- Ron Paul's position -- that government "oppression," as they define it, comes only from the federal government. Whatever states and private citizens (including employers) do that might look oppressive to most people is OK with them.

And from that flows the rest of Paul's ideas about civil liberty. His opposition to surveillance and drug laws comes less from his tender concern for individual rights than from his monomaniacal aversion to federal authority, and that aversion grew out of racism. His racist newsletters are no anomaly; they are an expression of who he is.

It's true that Barack Obama also has given approval to policies that have racially disproportionate effects, such as the "drug war." But are his motivations for doing this racist? I think that's unlikely; it's more likely he thinks he would pay too high a price in political capital to, for example, end the "drug wars." In other words, the Right wouldn't just call him the Food Stamp President; they'd start calling him the Food Stamp and Crack Cocaine President. And if that's the case, you could argue that's a cowardly reason to support the drug wars, or you could argue he has to pick his fights until after the election. Whatever.

But to paint Ron Paul and Barack Obama as somehow equivalent to each other as racist is just ignorant.


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/singleton/undefinedsingleton/#comment-2924881

Oh goody, yet ANOTHER "I don't support Ron Paul but isn't he awesome on all the stuff I care about and why don't you think he's awesome but seriously I'm not a Ron Paul supporter but he IS awesome!" column. I guess it's been several days since Greenwald stepped up to the plate so now it's Sirota's turn.

those voters who say they detest Paul not because of his extreme economic ideas, but because they feel his record represents an unacceptable form of racism.

The beauty of these reasons is that they are not mutually exclusive; both of them are reasons to find Paul detestable and loathsome. But please, let's have another dozen Salon columns focusing on the one thing he's right about (for the wrong reasons).

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/singleton/undefinedsingleton/#comment-2924931

[Enrique]

1. keep hunting those witches!

but give Andrew Sullivan a pass please. He likes Obama. Thanks!

[ProSense]

2. .

"keep hunting those witches!"

Witches = Apologists for racists, anti-gay, anti-women, corporate tool Republicans?

You Know You're A Paulbot When...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184576

[Enrique]

3. but you defend Andrew Sullivan

at long last, Prosense, have you no sense of decency?

[ProSense]

4. Hmmm?

"but you defend Andrew Sullivan at long last, Prosense, have you no sense of decency? "

Link? Seriously, throw another bullshit red herring on the pile.


You Know You're A Paulbot When...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184576

[ProSense]

6. In fact

address the issue: Do you agree with Sirota's assessment, and why or why not?

[Enrique]

8. i.e., "are you now or have you ever been..."

yeah everyone knows that tactic.

[ProSense]

10. Which

i.e., "are you now or have you ever been..."

yeah everyone knows that tactic.

...tactic: avoiding the topic of the OP to discuss Andrew Sullivan?

I mean, is Andrew Sullivan's defense of the President supposed to equal Sirota's defense of Paul?

If someone calls Obama policies racist, is that supposed to be equal to calling Paul's views racists?

Is supporting DOMA the same as opposing DOMA?

Is supporting reproductive rights the same as opposing them?

Is supporting civil rights, the same as opposing civil rights?

[dsc]

11. the fact is Sullivan, with the exception of DOMA,

has done pretty much all the stuff you ask. Sullivan was against a federal ENDA, he is certainly against abortion and always has been, and endorsed the Bell Curve from his perch as editor of the New Republic.

[ProSense]

12. Wait

the fact is Sullivan, with the exception of DOMA,

has done pretty much all the stuff you ask. Sullivan was against a federal ENDA, he is certainly against abortion and always has been, and endorsed the Bell Curve from his perch as editor of the New Republic.

...what the hell does the OP have to do with Sullivan? Is he running for President?

Sullivan is a conservative. Do you think anyone is confused by what that means?

I mean, it sounds like Sullivan should be supporting the Republican candidate, but his views have absolutely nothing to do with Sirota's defense of Paul.

[dsc]

19. If it is wrong when Paul does it, why isn't it wrong when Sullivan does?

Here is what you said Paul did

Is supporting DOMA the same as opposing DOMA?

Is supporting reproductive rights the same as opposing them?

Is supporting civil rights, the same as opposing civil rights?

Again, Sullivan did two of the three. Yet you quite approvingly posted about his views the other day. So if the above views disqualify Paul from any role in the public discourse, why don't they do the same to Sullivan?

[ProSense]

21. I'll

If it is wrong when Paul does it, why isn't it wrong when Sullivan does?

Here is what you said Paul did

Is supporting DOMA the same as opposing DOMA?

Is supporting reproductive rights the same as opposing them?

Is supporting civil rights, the same as opposing civil rights?

Again, Sullivan did two of the three. Yet you quite approvingly posted about his views the other day. So if the above views disqualify Paul from any role in the public discourse, why don't they do the same to Sullivan?

...give a shit about what Sullivan thinks when he runs for President.

I find your attempted defense of Paul to be strange.

Also, can you provide a link to where I "quite approvingly posted about his views"?

[girl gone mad]

88. You seem to give a shit about what Sullivan thinks now.

Why else post his drivel here?

[FarLeftFist]

49. Let's never stop hunting those racist homophobic fucks that occupy the Fright-Wing.

[Odin2005]

5. Fuck Ron Paul.

[Romulox]

7. That's cool. I heard you guys just picked up Andy Sullivan. Is Charles Krauthammer next???

[ProSense]

9. Ron Paul

is anti the drug war like he's anti probing women's vaginas.

Insisting Ron Paul is "against the racist drug laws" doesn't absolve him of his views that people should be free to treat blacks as second class citizens.

It took 40 years for someone to do something positive related to the war on drugs. http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

He conveniently didn't cast a vote for the Second Chance Act (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1083.xml) He voted against the hate crimes bill and employment discrimination laws

Ron Paul's position is simply to get the federal government out of drug law enforcement, eliminating government regulations (giving corporations free reign), eliminating the safety nets, and then let the states decide.

Ron Paul constantly votes against FDA oversight of tobacco and talks about it in very much the same way he talks about federal involvement in drug regulation.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated -- as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=115

His views are not hard to understand.

Illegal Drugs, a General Statement

Paul: Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs. On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview: “[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”
Source: www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/war-on-drugs (10/31/2011)

War on Drugs

Paul: Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs. On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview: “[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”
Source: www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/war-on-drugs (10/31/2011)

Medical Use of Marijuana

Paul: The issue is not whether one supports medical marijuana or not. The issue is whether Washington decides or local voters decide. For most issues, the Constitution leaves decision-making to the states. For most of the 20th century, however, the federal government has ignored the Constitution and run roughshod over state sovereignty. As a result, the centralizers of both parties in Washington cannot imagine a society not dominated by the federal government.
Source: Ron Paul (02/26/2008)

Legalization of Marijuana

Paul: I believe that this issue needs to be resolved at the state and local level, and that the federal government has no constitutional authority to intervene in these decisions.
Source: Ron Paul (02/26/2008)

http://vote-usa.org/issue.aspx?election=us20121106ar&office=uspresident&issue=busillegaldrugs

His position on everything is anti-federal goverment, and then you're on your own. His position on the war on drugs is no different, and as for any help for people affected by his decisions, well like his opposition to health care there is always charity. http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

I know Paul co-sponsored Barney Frank’s bill on marijuana (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102660) , but I damn sure know that Barney Frank supports government health care and that he sponsored the Second Chance Act.

[Romulox]

13. There is no "good" or "legitimate" reason to support the racist War on Drugs.

If you support the status quo with regard to the War on Drugs, you support institutionalized racism.

[ProSense]

15. What?

There is no "good" or "legitimate" reason to support the racist War on Drugs.

If you support the status quo with regard to the War on Drugs, you support institutionalized racism.

Who the hell said anything about a "'good' or 'legitimate' reason to support the racist War on Drugs"?

One doesn't have to agree with Paul to oppose the war on drugs.

Paul is OK with states fighting the war on drugs, not the Federal Government.

So what the hell is your point?

[Romulox]

16. The President and his DOJ have escalated the War on Drugs. It's indefensible. nt

[ProSense]

17. Again

"The President and his DOJ have escalated the War on Drugs. It's indefensible. "

...who is defending it?

Like I said, one doesn't have to agree with Paul to oppose the war on drugs.

Paul is OK with states fighting the war on drugs, not the Federal Government. That too is "indefensible," but you seem to want to use Paul to make your point.

[Romulox]

20. You. nt

[frylock]

31. ...who is defending it?

silence is consent. i'd love to see your posts expressing your disappointment with obama for escalating the war on drugs.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. ProSense expresses disappointment with Obama all the time

There isn't a day that goes by where she doesn't hold Obama's feet to the fire.

[ProSense]

34. You

ProSense expresses disappointment with Obama all the time

There isn't a day that goes by where she doesn't hold Obama's feet to the fire.

...must have me mixed up with you: holding Obama's feet to the fire between posts worthy of the National Enquirer.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. I love you ProSense!

**smooch**

[ProSense]

33. Clearly

who is defending it?

silence is consent. i'd love to see your posts expressing your disappointment with obama for escalating the war on drugs.

...you support Paul's views on abortion. If I'm wrong, "i'd love to see your posts expressing your disappointment."

[frylock]

41. ron paul is a nutjob shitbag that shouldn't even be dignified with a response..

but here it is kid: i abhor ron paul. his views are dangerous for our country. i would never dream of voting for ron paul, nor would i support him in any manner. i am pro-choice. i am also pro-legalization, and anti-war. those views are not, and have never been shaped by the opinion of ron paul, or his acolytes.

now it's your turn! let's see your posts regarding obama's draconian policies as they regard to drug possession.

[ProSense]

44. Wait

ron paul is a nutjob shitbag that shouldn't even be dignified with a response..

but here it is kid: i abhor ron paul. his views are dangerous for our country. i would never dream of voting for ron paul, nor would i support him in any manner. i am pro-choice. i am also pro-legalization, and anti-war. those views are not, and have never been shaped by the opinion of ron paul, or his acolytes.

now it's your turn! let's see your posts regarding obama's draconian policies as they regard to drug possession. "I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

...you just posted that as your objection? Where are your posts?

I mean, you're asking someone to produce posts, you first!

[frylock]

48. read the fucking subject line..

ron fucking paul is nothing. i don't give two fucking shits about ron fucking paul. that's why you don't see any posts from me about ron fucking paul. ron fucking paul is not going to win the nom. your obsession with ron fucking paul is creepy, at best.

we're done here now.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. Ron Paul is not "nothing". The only thing standing between Ron Paul and the Presidency is ProSense.

She's fighting the good fight!

[ProSense]

58. Actually,

"Ron Paul is not 'nothing'. The only thing standing between Ron Paul and the Presidency is ProSense."

...it's not that he's "not 'nothing," it's that he's a racist and a lunatic. I assume that, like me, you find his views despicable.

[Cali_Democrat]

60. Exactly right!

Thanks for fighting the good fight! Like I said before, you are a beacon of light in a sea of pro-Ron Paul darkness on DU.

Thanks for exposing the undercover Paulbots!

I don't know where we would be without you and your Ron Paul posts.

[ProSense]

65. You're quite welcome. n/t

[sabrina 1]

62. The Drug War is racist. Do you support the Drug War?

[ProSense]

64. Everything

"The Drug War is racist. Do you support the Drug War?"

...is racist in terms of the impact on minorities, profiling, redlining, etc. Unemployment among young black men is more than 30 percent. Health care, racist!

As I said in a previous response, the ills of American society "disproportionately" affect minorities. Ron Paul and the rest of the Republicans could do something about the racist employment situation right now. They choose not to. In fact, they're determined to make the situation worse.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is still using the Paul is against the "racist drug wars" as if that somehow means Paul is against racism. His position on the war on drugs (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=191160) is like all his positions anti federal government.


Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192767

[sabrina 1]

81. Never mind Paul, that is a distraction. Why are Democrats not out there opposing the

drug war which nearly every expert agrees targets minorities ON PURPOSE and is one of the main weapons used to destroy their families, their children, women and especially young African American men.

See the latest reports of the abuses of this War on Drugs in NYC alone. Over 500,000 young minority men were stopped and frisked using the WOD as an excuse in NYC last year. And that is just ONE city.

Yet we do not hear Democrats, who are supposed to care about these issues for the RIGHT reasons, speaking out about ending this horrific, failed, racist, violent, costly in both lives and money 'war'.

Make Paul irrelevant. Democrats need to take on this issue as it is way past due and has already caused so much harm to minority communities.

But sadly they have been silent on this.

It doesn't matter what Paul's reasons are, he IS talking about it. And you and others are wasting time trying to distract from the topic itself, which is NOT Paul, it is racism in the system, systemic racism promoted by this obscene, unconstitutional, so-called 'war on drugs' which is really a war on the poor and minorities.

[ProSense]

82. Hmmm?

Never mind Paul, that is a distraction....It doesn't matter what Paul's reasons are, he IS talking about it. And you and others are wasting time trying to distract from the topic itself, which is NOT Paul, it is racism in the system, systemic racism promoted by this obscene, unconstitutional, so-called 'war on drugs' which is really a war on the poor and minorities.

That's a lot of mentions of Paul in a comment about this not being about Paul. He's not a "distraction," he's a fucking racist being called out for his lunatic views.

Still, it appears you ignored the point of my last comment so let me repeat:

Everything is racist in terms of the impact on minorities, profiling, redlining, etc. Unemployment among young black men is more than 30 percent. Health care, racist!

As I said in a previous response, the ills of American society "disproportionately" affect minorities. Ron Paul and the rest of the Republicans could do something about the racist employment situation right now. They choose not to. In fact, they're determined to make the situation worse.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is still using the Paul is against the "racist drug wars" as if that somehow means Paul is against racism. His position on the war on drugs (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=191160) is like all his positions anti federal government.

You seem to care only about racist policies related to the war on drugs. There are a lot of people working to reverse racist policies across the board. You know who isn't: Fucking Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192767

Ron Paul’s “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002202676

[sabrina 1]

83. How many times have YOU mentioned him over the past several

weeks?

Why are Democrats not talking about the racist drug war?

[ProSense]

84. A

How many times have YOU mentioned him over the past several weeks?

...lot, calling him out for the racist he is. I don't give a shit about his views on any issue.

You seem to be having trouble understanding that.

[sabrina 1]

85. Again, why are there no Democrats with a national platform speaking out against the war on

drugs considering the incredible harm it has done to minority communities and with zero results as far as cutting down on the use of drugs?

[ProSense]

57. You

read the fucking subject line..

ron fucking paul is nothing. i don't give two fucking shits about ron fucking paul. that's why you don't see any posts from me about ron fucking paul. ron fucking paul is not going to win the nom. your obsession with ron fucking paul is creepy, at best.

we're done here now.

...shouldn't have started. I mean if you don't "don't give two fucking shits about ron fucking paul," it would be a good idea to ignore threads calling him out, especially if your only purpose for entering them is not comment on Ron Paul.

[frylock]

61. it has just begun

[Autumn]

67. I understand where you are coming from

try ignore. It's just like when you give your dog a bone. You take it away from your dog, it's going to growl and maybe bite you, it's going to chew that bone til it's gone.

[frylock]

71. yeh, i've decided it's time to utilize that feature

[ProSense]

78. Right

"I understand where you are coming from try ignore. It's just like when you give your dog a bone. You take it away from your dog, it's going to growl and maybe bite you, it's going to chew that bone til it's gone."

...calling out racist, anti-gay, anti-women, corporate tool running for the Republican nomination for President is like a "dog" chewing on a "bone."

I mean, that's such a clever way to say, "leave Ron Paul alone."

Stick around, the bone still has meat on it.

[Autumn]

79. As I said, you are going to chew that bone till it's gone. Have at it

the old fool will be gone in a bit and then you can focus on someone else.

[ProSense]

80. See

"Have at it the old fool will be gone in a bit and then you can focus on someone else"

...I want to see him out of politics. What did you have in mind?

[FarLeftFist]

50. Wait, you want to end the war on drugs? And what, legalize them all?!

[frylock]

30. cool story, bro

[ProSense]

35. I'm

"cool story, bro"

...not your "bro." In fact, I'm a woman.

It wasn't a story, it was information about Paul's bogus position on the war on drugs.

[frylock]

42. know your meme

[ProSense]

59. Know

your nuts!

[sabrina 1]

53. Lol, funny as hell!

Slam all Progressive writers under cover of slamming Paul, while adapting the likes of anti-women rightwingers like Sullivan. My head is spinning here!

[FarLeftFist]

56. Are you offended?

[dionysus]

14. it's telling who gets offended by you pointing out these simple fact...

[ProSense]

18. Let

it sink!

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Yup

Sirota is pumping Ron Paul. This is indefensible.

[sabrina 1]

54. Is this a test?

You know, 'have you ever or are you now' kind of test?

Disgusting what is going on in this forum these days. Even more disgusting to see the adaption of women haters like Andrew Sullivan as fine examples of 'progressive thought'.

[dionysus]

69. no. it's my personal observation. mccarthy attempt FAIL.

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. Dion, when you're right, you're right.

This is the really scary part for me, and the danger that some "supposed" liberals pose when they defend this guy.

"modern-day libertarianism largely grew out of court-ordered de-segregation and the federal government forcing states to give up Jim Crow laws, back in the 1950s and 1960s. A particular flash point came in 1957, when President Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to enable desegregation. A lot of right-wing craziness grew out of that, including the private "militia" movement."

[Number23]

86. I get especially warm and fuzzy when the posters who have never stepped foot in the AA forum

and who rarely ever have anything to say about racism as it pertains to education, housing, prison sentencing, health care (reason #1 why so many minorities support Obama's health care reform) etc. etc. etc. are just EATEN UP inside because of the racism in the drug war, the ONLY facet of racism that can be manipulated to seem to impact them and that Ron Paul cares about. (Or the one time he has seized upon racism to press some sort of advantage.)

Don't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Like when all of these non-black folks were calling Cornel West "Brother West" when he accused the president of "fearing free black men" and who only show support for black academics/thinkers/journalists when they are criticizing the president. It just makes me feel SOOO grand to have these folks in my corner.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Sirota is wrong...the drug war is not a racist war as minorities are NOT disproportionately targeted

The war on terrorism is not driven by rank Islamophobia. The surveillance state coupled with the Patriot Act are not necessarily bad things. The assassination of US citizens abroad is necessary in many cases.

Sirota is nothing more than a Paulbot.

[ProSense]

23. The

Sirota is wrong...the drug war is not a racist war as minorities are NOT disproportionately targeted

The war on terrorism is not driven by rank Islamophobia. The surveillance state coupled with the Patriot Act are not necessarily bad things. The assassination of US citizens abroad is necessary in many cases.

Sirota is nothing more than a Paulbot.

...ills of American society "disproportionately" affect minorities. Ron Paul and the rest of the Republicans could do something about the racists employment laws right now.

Unemployment among young black men is more than 30 percent. Health care, racist!

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Exactly right.

I would like to thank you for the OP. It's a beacon of light in a sea of pro-Ron Paul darkness.

[ProSense]

26. Yeah,

"I would like to thank you for the OP. It's a beacon of light in a sea of pro-Ron Paul darkness. "

...I find it hard to believe that anyone is still using the Paul is against the "racist drug wars" as if that somehow means Paul is against racism.

Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192767

Oh, and you're welcome.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. Yup.

People like Sirota and Greenwald love to pump Ron Paul. It's sickening.

[sabrina 1]

63. I see you've been to the re-education camp!

[dionysus]

70. that's a mighty fine strawman you just beat up. i'm impressed. try harder.

[Zorra]

27. I don't care for Ron Paul, and I don't support any of them.

I'm voting for Obama simply because he's better than the other two.

☮ccupy

[SomethingFishy]

29. Can you show me where Sirota says Romney=Obama?

I can't seem to find it.

I saw this: These folks will likely tell you that their alleged commitment to policies promoting racial equality has moved them to support Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, politicians who, of course, support bigoted civil liberties atrocities, Islamophobic foreign invasions and a racist drug war.

But cannot find where Sirota says "Romney=Obama".

[frylock]

43. clearly, you're not going to get an answer..

the OP has had ample opportunity to address your question.

[MFrohike]

37. Question

Is anyone besides you posting threads about Ron Paul? This is getting creepy.

[ProSense]

38. Nope

"Question: Is anyone besides you posting threads about Ron Paul? This is getting creepy."

...just me. Well, not all me. There are a handful of "sure he's a racist, but" posts. Still, the posts calling out this racist, anti-gay, anti-women, corporate tool Republican candidate, mostly me!

Guilty!

Question: Do you think Ron Paul is "creepy"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192450

[MFrohike]

39. Right

I just counted 4 Ron Paul threads from you in the first 2 pages of GD. It seems a bit excessive for a guy who's not leading and is about as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry.

I'm not answering your question because I'm not aiding your deflection.

[ProSense]

40. Fascinating

I just counted 4 Ron Paul threads from you in the first 2 pages of GD. It seems a bit excessive for a guy who's not leading and is about as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry.

I'm not answering your question because I'm not aiding your deflection.

There are nearly 20 threads about Newt on the first two pages. What the hell is wrong with people?







Oops, miscounted.

[MFrohike]

45. Crazy ideas

1. Not all 20 are from the same person.

2. Newt actually has a chance unlike He-who-we-should-all-stop-naming.

[FarLeftFist]

46. Personally I think we need more anti-Ron Paul threads around here. The guy is a fucking

Embarrassment to the United States that such a racist homophobic piece of shit could be elected to office.

[ProSense]

47. What

1. Not all 20 are from the same person.

2. Newt actually has a chance unlike He-who-we-should-all-stop-naming.

...can I say, I'm picking up the slack.

Let's see, Paul came in third in Iowa, 8 points above Gingrich. Paul came in second in NH, 13 points above Gingrich.

CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/

There is absolutely no reason to withhold criticism of Paul, and I think the excuses are lame.

[FarLeftFist]

55. Crazy that some people will defend a GOP candidate.

The guy is very much on our radar and SHOULD be. He's running for the highest office in the land and is the most dangerous candidate I've ever seen. Also, people need to step out of their DU bubble and realize that there are PLENTY of people that read these forums that aren't even DU members. Nothing wrong with swaying their opinions.

[frylock]

66. people are defending themselves againt this libelous bullshit..

that if you agree with paul regarding the war on drugs, than you endorse paul's candidacy. it's simplistic, black n white bullshit, and it's being used to squelch any criticism of the obama admin.

[sabrina 1]

72. Well, I know you won't like me asking this question, but could you please post

the names of those who are defending a GOP candidate? Enquiring minds want to know. I didn't spend the last ten years fighting hard against Republicans to find myself now in the company of Republican defenders on a Democratic board. For the record I have never seen one except for the odd freeper troll who never manages to post more than a couple of posts before being detected. But your comment implies that some of them have escaped our notice, so point them out and I will alert on them.

[FarLeftFist]

73. Don't worry, we don't need you to put an "alert out on them". We'll handle it.

[sabrina 1]

74. 'We'?

So there are no Republicans supporters on this board. Didn't think so.

Thanks for the response, you really have to stop making these false accusations against DUers unless you are prepared to prove them. People will begin to doubt everything you say.

[FarLeftFist]

75. CREEEEEPY!

[sabrina 1]

76. Very creepy.

Like I said, I do not know you. Have a great evening. I'm off to a party. Can't say it's been nice knowing you, that would be dishonest, but maybe you'll try harder not to falsely accuse DUers of things you make up in your own imagination from now on.

[FarLeftFist]

77. Riiiight. Amazing what people tell themselves. Have fun at your party and be careful.

[quaker bill]

51. Paul, a less sane version of Perot, without the charts and "giant sucking sound"

At least Perot was occasionally funny. you are doing good work here.

[maximusveritas]

87. Nothing surprising coming from him.

He was one of the worst anti-Obama people in 2008 as well after his hero David Edwards lost. He is prone to exaggerations and attacking his critics.