• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stormfront Supports Ron Paul

ImaginalDisc

Penultimate Amazing
I
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
10,219
The admins of Stormfront.org (Arguably the most racist place in the galaxy) have gone out of their way to sticky this thread to the bottom of every page on the forum.

RACISTS FOR RON PAUL!
 
Last edited:
I saw a "RON PAUL 2008" written in chalk up on North Campus today.

Should I get some sidewalk chalk...
 
Cain said:
Why do these racists support Ron Paul?
Click to expand...

It might have something to do with the fact that Ron is strongly pro-State. His ideas on State rights would allow individual states to decide on issues such as homosexual marriage, civil rights etc.

Like many libertarians, he is not a racist or a homophobe. However, his position would overturn the ability of the Federal government to enforce anti-discrimination legislation against the wishes of individual states.

States rights are good in theory but I would much rather see the protection of individual liberties. Historically, it has been much easier to achieve a majority in support of individual liberties at a national level than to achieve a majority in each of the 50 states. The flip side is that a majority at a national level can also be used to infringe the rights of individuals (even if particular states would have protected those rights).

For some reason, many libertarians are unable to see the trade-off between individual liberty and states rights.

Gurdur has spoken of this more eloquently than I in a thread about the civil war.
 
OMGturt1es said:
as much as i hate ron paul, i also hate fallacious guilt by association. but is it funny? yes. yes it is.
Click to expand...

It is fallacious to assume that he is racist by association without providing seperate evidence.

It is not fallacious to notice that many racists support Ron Paul and to ask what they hope to gain from a Ron Paul victory.

And you are quite right. It is indeed funny to watch the number of racists, truthers, general nutters and woo-woo believers who support Ron. It is also very funny to watch Ron try to distance himself from the nuts without losing their support (and above all money).

By the way, nice tags. I hope the tag nazis team don't erase them.

By the way, that quip about the taggers is a joke and please don't alter the tags on any of my threads to 'gtc is a poopy'.
 
Last edited:
gtc said:
It might have something to do with the fact that Ron is strongly pro-State. His ideas on State rights would allow individual states to decide on issues such as homosexual marriage, civil rights etc.

Like many libertarians, he is not a racist or a homophobe. However, his position would overturn the ability of the Federal government to enforce anti-discrimination legislation against the wishes of individual states.

States rights are good in theory but I would much rather see the protection of individual liberties. Historically, it has been much easier to achieve a majority in support of individual liberties at a national level than to achieve a majority in each of the 50 states. The flip side is that a majority at a national level can also be used to infringe the rights of individuals (even if particular states would have protected those rights).

For some reason, many libertarians are unable to see the trade-off between individual liberty and states rights.

Gurdur has spoken of this more eloquently than I in a thread about the civil war.
Click to expand...

The Republican Party has been doing this since Nixon. Bob Herbert had an unusually good (if totally irrelevant) column yesterday in the NYT discussing how Reagan used the code words "states' rights" in order to play upon racist sentiment. I think Ken Mehlman apologized for the Republicans party's southern strategy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
Ron Paul isn't racist and I also find this very strange. The Stormfront folks supporting him explain their reasoning and it has nothing to do with racism and if you read those threads you'll notice that a lot of other racists say that they will NOT support him because he is not a racist.

A lot of strange sorts of people tend to be supporting Ron Paul and I don't know exactly why. I'm always driving down the street and I see vans painted with "Ron Paul 08" all over them and I always see large flags on overpasses. I saw one this morning on a train overpass that said "Revolution Ron Paul 08" or something like that.

Where are these grass roots Ron Paul supporters coming from and why are they supporting him in particular?
 
That southern racists solidly supported Democrats for a hundred years doesn't seem to phase anyone...
 
Beerina said:
That southern racists solidly supported Democrats for a hundred years doesn't seem to phase anyone...
Click to expand...


I wonder what's the fuss about anyway. Paul isn't a racist
and has nothing to do with Stormfront or other Neo-Nazis.
 
Oliver said:
. Paul isn't a racist
and has nothing to do with Stormfront or other Neo-Nazis.
Click to expand...

you mean that saying he assumes that 95% of black people in washington isn't racist? Is there nothing you won't overlook just because you want an isolationist USA?
 
In a libertarian society, a person is free to believe what he wishes about other races. He/she is NOT permitted to force that belief on others.

In a socialistic society, the collective forces its beliefs on individuals. Individual beliefs are validated by consensus, not reason.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist, but it doesn't matter. He supports liberty and non-violence.
 
brodski said:
you mean that saying he assumes that 95% of black people in washington isn't racist? Is there nothing you won't overlook just because you want an isolationist USA?
Click to expand...


A. There is no evidence for any racial comments. (Go ahead: find
a source - not just an Article that can't provide a source)

B. Paul doesn't support Stormfront. So what is the Statement that
Stormfront supports Paul supposed to state ... Exactly: Nada

C. I'm thinking quite the opposite about isolationism. The current
foreign policies are heavily damaging the US reputation and therefore:
Threatening National Security. Paul's idea basically is to make friends
instead enemies. How bad is this Idea?

And no, that doesn't mean that America shouldn't stay away if there
is a real crisis. I probably disagree with Paul on that - but he clearly
states that Congress should decide - not him. So I can accept this
logic as well. What's your problem with this solution?
 
ZenFountain said:
It's not inherently a bad idea, but that doesn't make it a good policy in all instances.
Click to expand...


I know - that's why congress should make that decision, not
a single person (in case of Potus). The reason why I think this
way is that the current Potus and his staff are a foreign policy
disaster. And by now everyone should be able to understand
that. Paul's personal stance may not be perfect - but he isn't
interested in dictating anyway. The people should decide.

And it's time that "the People" go for their opinion - not let
the Government decide by pretty much ignoring or lying to
the public... I really like his idea - which isn't a new one
anyway.
 
Last edited:
G19 said:
In a libertarian society, a person is free to believe what he wishes about other races. He/she is NOT permitted to force that belief on others.

In a socialistic society, the collective forces its beliefs on individuals. Individual beliefs are validated by consensus, not reason.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist, but it doesn't matter. He supports liberty and non-violence.
Click to expand...

In any society, however, peer pressure can and will force beliefs on an individual.

For example, some people believe that children are capable of consenting to sexual activity or that women are property or that we should close down the public hospitals. The society as a whole disagrees with those beliefs and cultivates an environment that is generally hostile to them.

How would a libertarian society negate or lessen the effects of peer pressure?

Edit:

P.S. When someone who believes that anyone, by mere accident of birth, is automatically inferior or superior, that is not a person you want in charge of a diverse group of people. A leader should strive to treat all of his subjects equally and equally well, not decide, on arbitrary grounds, that a group is unworthy. (Note: depriving someone of their rights for being a criminal is not arbitrary.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom