Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal bechthros's Journal: this inexplicable ron paul phenomenon 18

Journal by bechthros

see, this is what i don't get.

i've got all these friends who are soooo totally, like, all into ron paul, you know? he's like, so totally radical! let's have a totally awesome money bomb dude! i'm stoked!

sure, he's for ending the war and bringing the troops home. 100% good on him for that.

but the guy's a fucking nutjob in every other aspect. he would repeal the civil rights act of 1964 and have black people at the back of the bus again (and let's not even discuss if they could get good jobs or vote). he would have NO government oversight of ANYTHING (kiss your overtime pay goodbye and say hello to child labor... oh, and i hope you weren't too attached to your lunch break and vacation time). and if you wanna chain a faggot to the back of your bumper and drag him down the road until he dies from lack of skin - well, he might not personally approve, but he certainly wouldn't want the government to intervene.

everybody i know that is a huge ron paul supporter are all decent, honorable people. that's why i'm friends with them in the first place. though none of my friends who are ron paul supporters are gay (gay people don't support ron paul for a reason), none of them give a shit what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them, and most of them have had friends and associates who are gay. though none of my friends who are ron paul supporters are women (women don't support ron paul for a reason), none of them would take any rights away from women, and most of them care deeply for their mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives. though none of my friends who support ron paul are black (black people don't support ron paul for a reason), none of them are racist, and most of them have had friends and associates who are black.

ron paul's policies, aside from the withdrawal from the catastrophe that is iraq, do not represent the viewpoints of any ron paul supporters that i know of.

i don't get it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

this inexplicable ron paul phenomenon More

this inexplicable ron paul phenomenon

Comments Filter:
  • I haven't seen 'em swoon like this since the POWERS introduced Perot - to ensure a Clinton victory.

    That man. He was attractive!
  • It's because he is the only somewhat mainstream candidate in the memory to say there is too much government and really mean it. He's a nutjob, but we need some nutjobs to keep the rest honest.

  • and if you wanna chain a faggot to the back of your bumper and drag him down the road until he dies from lack of skin - well, he might not personally approve, but he certainly wouldn't want the government to intervene.

    Can I see something from Ron Paul himself that backs this ridiculous assertion up, please? Note that I AM NOT a Ron Paul supporter, I just think this kind of character assassination is uncalled for. We don't like it when they do it to our guy, we need to show their guy(s) the same respect we w

    • it's hard to see it as character assassination when most of the stuff comes from ron paul's own newsletter, that he published, and is therefore responsible for. phenry on dailykos has a pretty well researched 4 part diary on it that starts here [dailykos.com]. hard to source because old copies of his newsletter are incredibly hard to find, and usually can only be referenced through a third part neo-nazi or white supremacist group, because those were mostly the only people who both got it and wrote about it in easier to
      • If "Hard to source" == "I can't provide the quote", then I think you should retract that statement.

        The hardest part of politics, is remembering to hold yourself to your OWN standard, and not the standard you perceive your opponent having.

        In short, that way lies Pudgehood.
        • there's plenty of quotes provided in the dailykos pieces (four of them). read the quotes they provided and tell me if you still think i'm out of line.
          • That's not the point - The point isn't that Kossacks think that about him, and are willing to say it. The point is, neither you or I can prove he said it - and therefor we can't call him on it, either...

            He's not getting my vote or yours, right? So, why stoop to that level? He's said enough disturbing things that we CAN prove, right???

            It's about not stooping to the level of the enemy, because then, they stoop to our new low, we do the same, and the next thing you know, they're rounding people up and putting
            • MY point is that, since his newsletters were published by him, that makes him a publisher. and publishers bear responsibility for editorial content. i don't think there's anything underhanded about holding him accountable for that.

              this tnr article [tnr.com] links to sevral pdf files of scans straight from hard copies of the original newsletters. if that's not good enough for you in terms of sourcing, i really don't know what will be.
              • If you can point out to me where he says what I called you on in one of those, then great. Otherwise, you shouldn't say it - aren't his own words damning enough? Do we really need to put extra words in his mouth?
                • what exactly are you looking for a citation regarding?
                    • ron paul voted against hr 1592, as he has against all hate crime bills. he views the torture and murder of homosexuals, blacks and other minority groups to be less odious than Big Government doing anything to stop it. satisfied?
                    • Again, I'm not a RP supporter. I just think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. For example, I don't think we should say people have said things if we can't prove that they said those things. I'd like to see something that shows he said the words you seem to have put in his mouth. If you don't have something saying he has said that, I think you should retract the statement. The kind of tactic you're using is something I would expect from Pudge, not from someone reasonable, like yourself.
                    • so you're not objecting to what i said, but the way in which i said it?
                    • Ok. I'm not getting through on this at all, or you're trolling me at this point - still, let me try this again.

                      I will use an example to illustrate my point:

                      If Pudge said, "Hi, I'm a republitard, and I like raping goats, and small furry animals!" and I had a link to a post where he admitted that, I'd be comfortable repeating it. If I only had a post to someone who said, "Last night, while I was pumping Pudge's rear end full of man juice, he cried out, 'I'm a republitard, and I like raping goats, and small fu
                    • ok, here [ontheissues.org] is where ron paul admits in an interview that he would vote against the civil rights act of 1964 if it were proposed today. unsure why you would think i was trolling a reader of my own journal, as it would gain me nothing. ron paul's priorities are clear - in his eyes, federal enforcement of integration is worse than jim crow segregation. i don't feel i'm putting words in his mouth to say so, and i'm not sure why you would either. obviously, in the course of discussion of controversial politici
                    • I don't see anything in there where he says he states, "and if you wanna chain a faggot to the back of your bumper and drag him down the road until he dies from lack of skin - well, he might not personally approve, but he certainly wouldn't want the government to intervene."

                      That's the only part I'm saying you should retract. It's inflammatory hearsay, it's character assassination - and he has no character to assassinate, so ultimately, saying things like that helps him.
                    • the colorful phrasing is mine, and i will cheerfully own and take full responsibility for it. but the position is his, and i feel my characterization of it, while admittedly crass and grotesque, i regard as considerably less crass and grotesque than the position itself. it would be character assassination if it weren't true, or if i'd said that my colorful verbiage was a direct quote of his. neither of those is the case.

                      i can understand your sentiment that it's a level i shouldn't stoop to. i respect i

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close