Judge That Forced Apple To Apologize Now Works For Samsung

[Qinsp]

And the idea that Lawyers should decide tech issues at all is insane.

These were the guys who couldn't figure out calculus, so they went into law instead. There are very few who even understand cars or houses, yet they are deciding what programming is all about?

 

[Trepidati0n]

If I go to work for Brand X coding, when Brand X shuts down, and I hire on for Brand Y, do I throw away my previous work?

Yes...YES YOU DO. When you coded at Brand X, all work you did was theirs and absolutely theirs. The only thing you can claim as yours is your coding methodology and understanding of coding structures. If you were actually a competent software engineer you wouldn't need your previous code for a new job..you would have already come up with something new to move the art forward.

But my guess is you don't write code. And if you do, I would love to let your employer know your guiding principal....I'll give you a beer when they walk you out the doors.

 

[Qinsp]

Yes...YES YOU DO. When you coded at Brand X, all work you did was theirs and absolutely theirs. The only thing you can claim as yours is your coding methodology and understanding of coding structures. If you were actually a competent software engineer you wouldn't need your previous code for a new job..you would have already come up with something new to move the art forward.

But my guess is you don't write code. And if you do, I would love to let your employer know your guiding principal....I'll give you a beer when they walk you out the doors.

You don't get it. Nobody starts from a clean sheet of paper.

Did you write your compiler? Do you even code in x86 assembler? You've NEVER used libraries, or algorithms you've seen before??????? Or came up with yourself 20 years ago????

I'm calling BS. You've STOLEN more code than you realize. Maybe some of mine. You're welcome. There weren't software patents back then, the idea of it was stupid, even to Bill at the time.

 

[Qinsp]

Note: I said Brand X folded. Out of business. Defunct. No support. No product.

And YES I DID re-use my bi-cubic parametric code. It was neither illegal or unethical. If you used CAD or CAM, or Vector-based imaging on a PC, there might be some of my math embedded. Dunno.

 

[PurduEE]

And the idea that Lawyers should decide tech issues at all is insane.

These were the guys who couldn't figure out calculus, so they went into law instead. There are very few who even understand cars or houses, yet they are deciding what programming is all about?

Juries and judges decide the issues. Lawyers present them via expert witnesses, who generally hold advanced degrees and/or significant experience in the subject at issue. In most cases, the lawyers involved hold degrees related to the subject, as well. I work as a patent litigator, hold a BSEE and worked in firmware/BIOS development for a decade.

 

[Qinsp]

Juries and judges decide the issues. Lawyers present them via expert witnesses, who generally hold advanced degrees and/or significant experience in the subject at issue. In most cases, the lawyers involved hold degrees related to the subject, as well. I work as a patent litigator, hold a BSEE and worked in firmware/BIOS development for a decade.

I was only used an expert witness three times, as a courtesy to my clients. It was enlightening. Never the same lawyers or judges. I own a digitizing laboratory.

None of the lawyers in any of the three trade-dress cases actually had any idea what was being discussed.

One of the cases was truly laughable. A five lug car wheel had 5 oval openings. One wheel mfr sued the other because both products were similar.

By the time I pointed out that this design is ancient, and that 5 openings is functional, and that ovals are stronger, it was too late. Trade dress can't be functional alone.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Funny you mention General electric who makes everything from appliances, to, jet engines,to healthcare, to sofware, to weapons, to owning TV networks...and hasn't paid any corporate taxes in 4 years.

FairTax would have everyone paying taxes...

 

[Qinsp]

Juries and judges decide the issues. Lawyers present them via expert witnesses, who generally hold advanced degrees and/or significant experience in the subject at issue. In most cases, the lawyers involved hold degrees related to the subject, as well. I work as a patent litigator, hold a BSEE and worked in firmware/BIOS development for a decade.

Oh, and I apologize for my stereotyping. No, I am wrong in saying all lawyers lack technical backgrounds. But it is not a requirement, since they cannot testify in their own cases.

 

[lilbabycat]

What I was replying to tried to downplay this specific act by claiming it was common. Maybe didn't say it was ok, but tried to pull and officer Barbrady and imply 'nothing to see here, move along'.

No...not at all what I was implying.

I was implying that this happens all the time and nothing happens about it because "big business" is above the law.

 

[daglesj]

I don't see anything too wrong in this at all. Before the case came to court neither company would have known who was going to be in charge of it.

At the time the case would have been dealt with as per proper proceedures and rules. The judge found in favour of one company over the other. One company is pissed off the other is eternally grateful to the judge.

Then several months later the grateful company wants to bolster its legal resources to match the other companies possibly greater resources. So who does it look to? Maybe someone highly experienced that impressed them and is well known to them?

Makes perfect sense to me.

After all even though the writer of that article does seem a bit in love with Apple, I'm sure if Samsung waved $100000 or whatever under his nose to work for them he'd ask "how high?"

 

[///AMG]

Fact is almost every corporation tries to do this. Its whether its blatantly obvious that we start caring because its something we can easily look up. No one except for samsung and the judge will really know what happened unless of course some one tipped off a prosecutor with some evidence that the judge committed a crime. Though given Samsung's track record around the world its not really surprising. Not saying apple doesnt do it either but Samsung has got this stuff in the bag for decades.

 

[Mini-Me]

How so? Please explain.

It's the same old earmarks argument made by biased people who hate him for other reasons and/or have no comprehension that once ridiculous spending has been appropriated, it's his responsibility to bring as much of his taxpayers' extorted money back to them as he can. Nevermind that he voted against the bills anyway, and nevermind that those earmarks never held a candle to the hardcore military-industrial complex spending supported by the others, or the legislation the others routinely sell to the highest bidder (and get their help to write ). (I'd personally handle those earmarks differently to avoid such shallow criticism, by earmarking county expenses, but that's just me.)

 

[Mini-Me]

I don't see anything too wrong in this at all. Before the case came to court neither company would have known who was going to be in charge of it.

At the time the case would have been dealt with as per proper proceedures and rules. The judge found in favour of one company over the other. One company is pissed off the other is eternally grateful to the judge.

Then several months later the grateful company wants to bolster its legal resources to match the other companies possibly greater resources. So who does it look to? Maybe someone highly experienced that impressed them and is well known to them?

Makes perfect sense to me.

After all even though the writer of that article does seem a bit in love with Apple, I'm sure if Samsung waved $100000 or whatever under his nose to work for them he'd ask "how high?"

The problem is that it raises the question, "Did the promise of future work come before or after the judge's decision?" Even having to worry about this is destructive to confidence in the legal system. Having doubt about the factors leading to a decision is especially unfortunate in a case like this, where the decision was legally the right call in the eyes of anyone with a broad view of the issue.

 

[rat]

How so? Please explain.

He allowed newsletters to be published, in his name, without supposed editorial oversight to what the newsletters contained ... then denied that he was aware of their contents despite having quoted from them in speeches previously.

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...iting-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

Not only has he quoted them, he defended them in the past...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

But also REFERENCED HIMSELF in the newsletters.

http://i.imgur.com/qPCCI.jpg

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

But continued the tone of the newsletters during his campaign with a speech saying “South Was Right” with Confederate Flag hanging behind him.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/

He double dipped on expense reimbursements during his time as a representative.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/21/did-paul-know-about-double-reimbursements-for-travel-expenses/

And had taxpayers pick up on unnecessary expenses,

http://houston.culturemap.com/newsd...l-prefers-first-class-taxpayers-pick-up-bill/

In his entire career, he only had one bill sponsored passed into law and missed 92% og votes during his presidential campaign. His career total of 12.7% missed votes is worse than the historical median of 2.6% among the lifetime records of representatives serving in Jan 2013.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...n-paul-has-missed-92-percent-of-votes-in-2012

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ronald_paul/400311

Despite never previously having made a go on the domain name that bears is name, when he is unable to get it turned over to him when he decides he wants it... he went to the UN...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...forcefully-ron-pauls-biggest-supporters.shtml

The very same UN that he sought to have defunded by the US (in which he claimed had a secret plan to destroy the US)... to hear his dispute.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only 1 of 4 House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requests for a total of $398mil.) He attached his earmarks to bills he knew would pass so they he could vote "No" on them and say he always votes against earmarks.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And he never really cared about civil liberties in the first place.

He sponsored a bill to deny funding to any org "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

And before you can say it was about government spending...

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal regime of Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm



And yes, there's plenty more where this came from. This is less than 10% of my pool of links about this guy. Dude is a con.

 

[wonderfield]

You seem completely normal in every way imaginable.

 

[Mini-Me]

techrat, only a select few of your long list of grievances has anything to do with "corruption" whatsoever, and I already addressed the superficial complaint against earmarks above.

As far as the "double dipping" goes, you sure do like trumpeting on about attacks on Ron Paul that later turned out to be unfounded. Given the huge chip on your shoulder, I suppose it's not surprising you didn't choose to inform anyone of the full story here, where the "Corrupt Ron Paul" narrative was exposed to be a complete lie:
http://www.optimiskeptic.com/2012/09/12/u-s-news-world-report-crew-blow-it-big-time/

That's it for corruption. The rest of your attacks are entirely different matters to inflate your post and give your argument the shallow appearance of overwhelming proof, but I'll address them anyway for the sake of anyone else who might be cowed and intimidated by them someday.

Yes, he sponsored the bill against funding for pro-gay organizations. That really makes perfect sense considering any and all arbitrary funding of private organizations is unconstitutional, with the exception of government contracts and purchase agreements that allow it to exercise its enumerated powers. He is also a "right-libertarian," so he's biased toward socially conservative cultural views despite being unwilling to outright legislate them in violation of the Constitution (like every other social conservative). I'll address your counterargument before you even say it: He also sponsored a couple other socially conservative bills like DOMA, but his reason was always prohibiting federal control over issues the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over, with the intention that the authority remain with or be returned to the states. I personally disagree with him here due to the biased language of the bill (I'm also pro-gay marriage for reference). I find his understanding of it to be Constitutionally borderline, and I think he was letting his biases tip the scales. I wouldn't have sponsored it, but nobody's perfect. If I crapped on him for it I'd be missing the much bigger picture regarding the balance of who he is and what he stands for, which is exactly what nitpicking detractors do while our entire country looms on the precipice of armageddon.

Your last link is broken, but the vast majority of bills have unconstitutional elements to them, so I'd bet my money that his cherry-picked vote against "divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal regime of Sudan" was likely justified on Constitutional grounds as well. If it wasn't, the bill most likely included a nonbinding resolution such as a condemnation of a foreign country for its internal affairs, which is something he generally tried to steer clear from. I don't know his specific reasoning in this case, but he voted "No" on almost everything, and every other time I've looked into Ron Paul being condemned for voting no on some "feel-good" piece of legislation, he always had a reason based strictly on his principles.

He missed 12.7% of votes which is much worse than the historical median of 2.6%...but that's a whole lot better than voting "Yay" on bills he never read, like the rest of the lot. It's a lot easier to make every vote when you don't hold yourself to reading or understanding the legislation you're voting on. He also only had a single sponsored bill passed into law, yes. Considering the kind of bills that ARE passed, I'm glad he's not the one to blame. Considering the kind that are squelched in committee, and what the rest of Congress is like...well, I'll take him over anyone else as my representative. I don't LIKE almost any of the laws that are actually passed, nor are they constitutional, and it's not his fault that the rest of Congress is completely insane.


Now, onto the newsletters. Ahh, those again. Good work pulling a dead horse back from its grave to beat it a few more times.

Ron Paul's single greatest character flaw is that he takes practically no responsibility for hands-on management of any organization or publication that bears his name. He's an "ideas nerd" who works at a big picture level and doesn't really care for day-to-day managerial responsibilities. He delegates responsibility to people around him and trust them far too much, and this has bitten him a number of times. (Would this have impacted his Presidency? Probably, yes, but I'd take another Warren Harding in a heartbeat over what we've had for the past few decades. Despite the Teapot Dome scandal caused by his runaway Cabinet, Harding otherwise did a halfway decent job anyway...which could be why he was so heavily smeared.)

Do some of the articles use Ron Paul's own voice, as if they were written by him? Yes, they do, and it's called ghostwriting. It's extremely common, but the difference in Ron Paul's case is that he lets his ghostwriters get away with murder. Note that I use the word "lets" in the present tense, because it STILL happens with emails that are very clearly written by someone else under his name, based on the style and wording. He never learns from it, and it's a shame, but nobody's perfect...and at least it helps illustrate what actually happened in the case of the newsletters.

The most objectionable newsletters were apparently written by a man named James Powell, and they were issued months apart and buried in a large amount of material that went out to a small conservative readership who probably skimmed most of it. Nobody even knew of them until 1996, and they were obscure enough to be forgotten again until Jamie Kirchick got one of his skinhead Stormfront contacts to find dirt on Ron Paul all those years later. Even then, nobody found out who likely wrote the racist ones until Ben Swann looked into it just last year:
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
Given all those facts and the fact that Paul insulates himself from day-to-day affairs, it makes perfect sense that he had no idea what they contained until 1996.

Here's something funny: You claim Paul quoted passages from the articles in his speeches, and you posted character assassination articles to supposedly support this. Actually, that seems to be a completely new bold-faced lie that you, techrat, specifically just made for this HardOCP thread. Congratulations on overextending your irrational hatred. Even your supporting articles don't make such a bold claim, let alone provide evidence for it! Instead, the ThinkProgress article (which I'm sure did everything it could to investigate thoroughly with a fair and balanced attitude ) argued that his direct responses to criticism in a 1996 interview prove his knowledge of some of their contents. That part is actually true. In fact, he was made aware of some of them in 1996 and advised by his campaign managers to attempt to defend and own them in the middle of a heated campaign. Here, out in the open:

One of the newsletters written by [presumably] Powell said, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." Despite this sounding absolutely nothing like his ordinary writing or manner of speech, Ron Paul was confronted with this in 1996, and his response was, "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them." That is literally THE most direct defense Ron Paul personally ever made of anything said in the newsletters he didn't write, and it's hardly the equivalent of your claim that he "quoted from them in speeches previously." (Should I assume the same honesty of characterization from all of your posts in the future? Jeez.) Anyway, his defense was about as distant as it could be. Does that sound like someone who seriously agrees with the newsletter's quote, or does that sound like someone who obviously realizes its stupidity, but who was convinced against his better judgment to just ride it out? It's also important to note that the worst thing about the original statement is not its prima facie content anyway but its broader implications about the author's racial attitudes...an attitude Ron Paul's defense did not repeat, because it's one he simply doesn't hold.

I have not found any statements from Ron Paul, even in 1996, that outright claim ownership over the comments written by [presumably] James Powell in 1992. Instead, he always deflected them as indirectly as he could and rode out the storm before admitting in 2001 that:
"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

Just how obliquely did he defend them in 1996? Let's go through the ones from your article, one at a time:
- In response to general criticism, he asked people to read the newsletters in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." This again was no admission of authorship, which again hints at his philosophical uncomfortability with the remarks. Technically speaking, statistics actually did support some of the comments, but they were never the kind of things that Ron Paul found constructive enough to be worthy of discussion.
- One of the newsletters he didn't even write called Barbara Jordan a "moron" and a "fraud" and said "her race and sex protect her from criticism." When confronted with this in 1996, he stumbled out, "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference." He could have piled on, and it actually wouldn't have sounded out of place at all in 1996 despite its rudeness, but he didn't. Why not? Well...maybe he was telling the truth in 2001 when he said, "I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

That's it for Ron Paul's personal acknowledgements in 1996. What about his campaign? One of the newsletters he didn't even write said, "[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational." In 1996, a campaign spokesman - not even Ron Paul personally - responded to criticism by pointing out that Jesse Jackson had made similar marks before anyway. True enough, and it was a decent enough defense...not that Paul actually said it himself anyway.

Last example:
One of the newsletters said, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Frankly, I think only about 2% of people whatsoever have sensible political opinions, but this is about Ron Paul, not me. In this case, Ron Paul never actually defended this statement in 1996 in any way. Apparently he was tired of defending statements he didn't make and left it to his campaign spokesman Michael Sullivan, while he was off elsewhere talking about the kind of things he actually believes in (limited government, allowing free competition in money, the hazards of fiat money, the dangers of the police state, etc.). The ThinkProgress article writes, "Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views." That's actually a pretty sensible defense, really, but it's still unfortunate, because the original statement used a negative racial tone that Ron Paul probably found distasteful.

Nevertheless, let's actually read that particular passage IN CONTEXT, shall we? The newsletter actually said,
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people."

The excerpt Jamie Kirchick circulated around is quite a distortion then, but it's not like Kirchick was ever trying to report honestly or accurately anyway. The words still don't really seem to be Ron Paul's, but they don't seem to be Powell's either, so I imagine they were probably another ghostwriter's. Either way, you'd have to really strain to find them especially offensive anyway. For more context, I defer to Justin Raimondo, which goes into greater detail on much of this:
http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul

Contrary to all of the character assassination, here are Ron Paul's real views on racism, in his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2z2LQMx9KY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7hy2HZoPe8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-drugs-drug-war_n_1170878.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
Here's a relevant article:
http://www.theroot.com/views/ron-paul-tackles-racism-issue

You could easily say, "Oh, he's lying, blah blah, and he just can't get away with being a racist nowadays," but that's the chip on your shoulder speaking. Watch videos of him speaking. If you actually understood his personality and the philosophy of libertarianism that he adheres to, you'd realize how obvious it is that his recent statements are his genuine views. Frankly, the arguments you use to attack him are obviously not your real reasons for hating him anyway: Almost none of Paul's detractors actually hate him based on the newsletters. Harping on about them is nothing more than a convenient excuse to dodge informed debate and cognitive dissonance regarding the real political issues where Paul's views clash with theirs, and it's intellectually dishonest.

Now, what about Paul's comments about the Civil War and the South? His views on secession and the Civil War have never included an endorsement of slavery or racism, so don't be disingenuous. I'm sorry if it gives you butthurt, but yes, he believes the South had the legal right to secede from the Union...and he's right. He believes in the legal principle of secession and states' rights, which - if it had truly been followed at the time - would actually have meant the Fugitive Slave Act should never have been enforced anyway, thereby making slavery impossible for the South to maintain. (Actually though, slavery was already impossible to maintain, which is partially why the South was so panicked. Industrialization was making it economically obsolete anyway. Once people started realizing they didn't need it, it made them reevaluate their selfish biases and view the issue from a moral viewpoint, which is how it came to be eliminated in every other western country without a civil war.)

Now that the thread has been derailed by your impertinent character assassination and my obligatory defense, maybe it's time to sit back and let the grown-ups talk about Judge Samsung.

 

[rat]

I love how your response basically amounts to "You don't get it." No, I get it. He's a neo confederate.

This was what his staff passed out at one of his campaign rallies.

Paul's America would be different. “We can thank (Ronald Reagan) for our annual ‘Hate Whitey Day.’” — 1990 Ron Paul newsletter on MLK holiday

http://www.timesdaily.com/stories/Pauls-America-would-be-different,186442

White Supremacist Group Says Ron Paul Did Not Vote for King Holiday, Twice (It's nice when the boneheads help you do your research, isn't it?)

http://onepeoplesproject.com/index....r-king-holiday&catid=29:antifa-news&Itemid=14

Ron Paul with the founder of Stormfront, a Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


See, I even used the same sources as you... But this Lew Rockwell guy, he's a special case. Let me connect the dots for you.


Ron Paul introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

Introduced "A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods, the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League via Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms


Yeah. You're not going to get anywhere by trying to say Paulie isn't some kind of racist nutter.

He made money off of it and allow his name to all over those newsletters.

Here's an example:

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June92_p1.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June92_p6.pdf

This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Dec90_p8.pdf

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Oct90_p4.pdf

A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/May1990.pdf

The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/January1993.pdf

The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_July92_p3.pdf

A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/March1993.pdf


AND HE ALLOWED HIS NAME TO BE PUT ON ALL OF THIS.


Call it character assassination all you want, but it STILL ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE PERSON.

 

[tmcclelland47]

S***'s gonna go down between Apple and Samsung now. Time to go make my popcorn and watch.

 

[Yossarian22]

techrat, if you use sources like that does it mean Alex Jones and Infowars is also acceptable?

Same with the OP and story, it came from some Apple lover's blog.

Good for Samsung.

 

[rat]

techrat, if you use sources like that does it mean Alex Jones and Infowars is also acceptable?

Same with the OP and story, it came from some Apple lover's blog.

Good for Samsung.

I'm quoting Ron Paul himself when it's a Lew Rockwell link, most of my other links are to the bills he himself wrote. So, if you want to play "Poison the Well", then you'll have to do it for all sources on both sides of the argument here... as I've used some of the same sources that Mini-Me used.

He also used Fox and Huffington Post, which I wouldn't do. So, really, Yossarian, is it myself that you need to ask this question to?

 

[Mini-Me]

You really don't get it. I already address DOMA and Ron Paul's cultural conservatism on the issue above, and the green letter at the top explicitly affirms what I said about it: He correctly believes that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force states to recognize each others' marriages. He also has social conservative biases, which I plainly addressed above. Here, let me REPOST the same paragraph, and you can ask your dad to read it to you:

Yes, he sponsored the bill against funding for pro-gay organizations. That really makes perfect sense considering any and all arbitrary funding of private organizations is unconstitutional, with the exception of government contracts and purchase agreements that allow it to exercise its enumerated powers. He is also a "right-libertarian," so he's biased toward socially conservative cultural views despite being unwilling to outright legislate them in violation of the Constitution (like every other social conservative). I'll address your counterargument before you even say it: He also sponsored a couple other socially conservative bills like DOMA, but his reason was always prohibiting federal control over issues the federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over, with the intention that the authority remain with or be returned to the states. I personally disagree with him here due to the biased language of the bill (I'm also pro-gay marriage for reference). I find his understanding of it to be Constitutionally borderline, and I think he was letting his biases tip the scales. I wouldn't have sponsored it, but nobody's perfect. If I crapped on him for it I'd be missing the much bigger picture regarding the balance of who he is and what he stands for, which is exactly what nitpicking detractors do while our entire country looms on the precipice of armageddon.

Ron Paul is a "neo-confederate?" In what sense? In the sense of believing in states' rights and secession, I suppose that's a valid characterization, but in the sense of believing in racism and slavery? Not even close.

I already addressed the newsletters and provided ample evidence that he never wrote the ones you so love to refer to, but it's no surprise it fell on deaf ears. Clearly you've never actually heard Ron Paul speak, if you actually buy into the idea that he would say "We can thank (Ronald Reagan) for our annual 'Hate Whitey Day.'" As if. Go back and watch his ACTUAL videos, and see how he speaks, and what he actually says about race.

Yes, he voted against the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in 1983. He actually voted yes for it in 1979, strangely enough. None of this is news, and I'm betting the difference between between the two occasions has to do with whether the specific language of the bill was Constitutional or not...something which you apparently don't care about, since you're so ready to smear him for it.

The founder of Stormfront had his picture taken with Ron Paul once, yes. And? Is this guilt by ten-second-association with a guy who he almost certainly didn't recognize? Heck, I'd be surprised if he knows to this day that he had his picture taken with that guy.

Ron Paul has indeed argued against the way the separation of church and state is interpreted, but as you can see at the very link you posted (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html), he is not making the case for theocracy. However, that article is particularly interesting, because it includes the one and only time he has ever been factually wrong about the Constitution: The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not both replete with references to God. Personally, I disagree with some of his position and DO believe in a rigid separation between church and state. On the balance, my disagreement with him on this issue pales in comparison to my agreement with him on almost everything else. Nobody's perfect.

He wants to repeal a federal law banning guns in school zones? So? So do I. It's the right thing to do, both Constitutionally and from a practical point of view. Gun free zones are an invitation for criminals.

He "denies" the global warming "consensus?" CRUFICY HIM! Actually, there's a reason for this: The "consensus" was imposed and is still sustained by utterly unscientific means. For starters, I present to you Dr. Richard Lindzen's pre-Climategate paper, "Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?": http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf

He believes the left is waging a war on Christmas. So? I'm an agnostic, and I actively disbelieve the Bible. Am I supposed to take up my torch and pitchfork now, or should I continue caring about *relevant issues* instead?

He introduced legislation that would "allow schools to resegregate." Wow, what an honest and representative way to describe the legislation! Actually, the legislation would have removed essentially all unconstitutional federal influence from the school system, including abolishing the Department of Education. However, since you're hellbent on seeing things in terms of race and hating Ron Paul instead of viewing the law in Constitutional terms, you conveniently left out his reasoning. Acknowledging that the federal government has overstepped its bounds only constitutes endorsement of discrimination in the minds of simpletons who care only about the immediate results of legislation rather than - as Ron Paul does - their implications regarding the powers of government.

The same goes for the IRS rules regarding private schools: The federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over such matters as basing taxation (etc.) on how discriminatory schools are. You may not like it, and you might say "to hell with the Constitution," but that's not how Ron Paul rolls. That was way back in 1979. Nowadays, he has bigger fish to fry, like trillion dollar deficits, undeclared wars, a currency on the brink of collapse, and a police state operating completely outside the boundaries of the law.

The SPLC consider Tom Woods to be the founder of a racist "hate group"...well, they would, wouldn't they? Don't even get me started on Morris Dees's money machine:
www.secondclassjustice.com/?p=300
http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/king-of-the-hate-business.html
www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_10080c9a-299b-11df-b1c8-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html, originally published: http://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/the-church-of-morris-dees/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/-southern-poverty-law-fraud-center.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36657587/The-Watchdogs-by-Laird-Wilcox
www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tolerance-mafia
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16213
www.aleksandreia.com/2010/04/06/ant...indling-hate-baiters-and-the-accusatory-media
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/southern_poverty_law_centers_lucrative_hate_group_label.html
Actually, wow, here's a good compilation. I have no idea who this guy is, but: http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_critics/southern_poverty_law_center_splc_info.html
So yeah, forgive me for not caring who the SPLC thinks is a "hate group." You hate Ron Paul, and and they hate libertarians, far more than Tom Woods has ever hated anyone. Now, as far as Tom Woods goes, there's actually confusion over whether he ever helped start the League of the South or not. They don't mention him as a founding member or anything of the like. Instead, it seems like he was briefly associated with him around his graduation from Harvard. I'm not really a fan of them (or Southern...anything, really), but demonizing them is way over the line. Here's a defense, from - ahem - your favorite libertarian and anarcho-capitalist blog:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html

Your guilt-by-association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute continues to fall flat. Yes, he's friends with Lew Rockwell; he would be, considering he's a big fan of von Mises. Some of the LvM and LRC people have a few skeletons in their closets, but the institution itself is about preserving and building upon the work of a Jewish economist who escaped Germany for the US during the Holocaust, for Pete's sake.

Next, you couldn't resist continuing with the newsletters...already debunked, but you persist, because haters gonna hate. It's character assassination, because it doesn't accurately describe the person. He did let his name be put on all of it, because his greatest character flaw is his complete disinterest in managing organizations and publications he's associated with, particularly in the area of ghostwriters. As I said before, he's not some racist troglodyte but a nerd, and you can see it in his speech, his (real)As for his actual views on race, which you can be sure he said because you can see him saying it, I once again defer to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2z2LQMx9KY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7hy2HZoPe8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1170878.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/ron-pau...s-racism-issue

Regardless, sue me for caring more about the actual issues he talks about, and for caring about the country being in the verge of a currency collapse, instead of all of this tabloid trash. Besides, it's not like you actually care about any of it either, except as a convenient means to smear a man you hate for entirely unrelated political reasons...i.e. those having to do with his opinions on current, relevant issues.

Now, if we're done with the senselessly hateful mudslinging, how about back to Judge Samsung?

 

[Mini-Me]

Oops...here's a correction for an incomplete sentence:
"As I said before, he's not some racist troglodyte but a nerd, and you can see it in his speech, his (real) writings, and the way he holds himself. As for his actual views on race, which you can be sure he said because you can see him saying it, I once again defer to:"

Anyway...Jesus, Christ.

 

[rat]

You really don't get it. I already address DOMA and Ron Paul's cultural conservatism on the issue above, and the green letter at the top explicitly affirms what I said about it: He correctly believes that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force states to recognize each others' marriages./QUOTE]

Then that flies in the face of him being a constitutionalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Equal protection clause REQUIRES it.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/

So, no, it's no surprise that he would be against this as he's tried to pick and choose which constitutional rights apply.

Goes back to the whole UN situation. Wants to strip them of their funding and authority, but runs right to them when it involves something that he wants.

When it comes to Ron Paul, "States rights" is just a convenient way of saying "it's not politically advantageous for me to have an vocal opinion on this issue."

 

[Mini-Me]

Ron Paul, based on the text, obviously disagrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation. The judicial system bases everything on precedent, but Ron Paul doesn't care about precedent, just the text...and frankly, that's the way it should be. In terms of marriage, his view actually makes perfect sense, because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over marriage whatsoever, meaning that the "privileges and immunities" enjoyed by US citizens do not extend to anything related to state marriage contracts.

Let me address your next argument for you. At times, Paul has actually argued wholesale against the "incorporation doctrine" implied by the 14th Amendment's, and I forgot to mention above that this is another rare disagreement I have with him. I understand why he considers it dangerous (which is outside the scope of this argument), but I think the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on the matter. He at times seems to recognize this as well despite himself, because he wavers on the issue. In the past, I have too actually, but I've come around to agreeing with the incorporation doctrine. If he hasn't, I really couldn't care less, because there are far more important issues to care about than this ridiculous character assassination circus.

When it comes to Ron Paul, states' rights actually means, "My political opinion on this issue isn't relevant." That's the only honest way to view it, in light of his actual philosophy, and I know this because it's my own philosophy as well. I don't agree with Ron Paul's views on marriage, but I really couldn't care less. You like to view every little thing in the worst possible light to paint him as a political opportunist, but if that were really anywhere close to the truth, he wouldn't have spent 30 years pissing into the wind, and avoiding lobbyists, and adhering to the extremely unpopular positions that make people like you hate him so much. Instead, he'd sound like Obomney.

You forgot to mention Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, by the way. Considering he's never run for a school board, and he doesn't believe the federal government has any business in education, I don't personally care what he thinks. He's a Christian in his 70's, so he's allowed to disbelieve in evolution. If I ever move to Texas, I'll fight the Texas conservatives myself on classroom matters, but for now, you know what I care about? I care about this country not starting World War III or turning into a third world country once the petrodollar fails, and I care about strictly limited government and managing to avoid this country becoming a police state hellhole...and so does Ron Paul. That's enough for me.

 

[Mini-Me]

state marriage licenses*

 

[Mini-Me]

oh and,
"implied by the 14th Amendment," not "implied by the 14th Amendment's"

Argh.

 

[rat]

The founder of Stormfront had his picture taken with Ron Paul once, yes. And? Is this guilt by ten-second-association with a guy who he almost certainly didn't recognize? Heck, I'd be surprised if he knows to this day that he had his picture taken with that guy.

One of Ron Paul's organizers in 2008 and 2012 is Jamie Kelso, white power webmaster, moderator of Stormfront, and former assistant of David Duke.

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111209/jamie-kelso-ron-paul-revolution-2007-2008

He "denies" the global warming "consensus?" CRUFICY HIM! Actually, there's a reason for this: The "consensus" was imposed and is still sustained by utterly unscientific means. For starters, I present to you Dr. Richard Lindzen's pre-Climategate paper, "Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?": http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf

All of Climate Change denialism has been funded by a shill group called Doners Trust.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/02/21/donors-trust-the-atm-for-climate-denial/

Koch brothers.

More than 90% of researchers support the global warming research.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html

He believes the left is waging a war on Christmas. So? I'm an agnostic, and I actively disbelieve the Bible. Am I supposed to take up my torch and pitchfork now, or should I continue caring about *relevant issues* instead?

Dismissing little things that don't personally affect you is a great way to blind yourself to the pattern that I'm trying to present to you. Don't be so fucking myopic about this.

Your guilt-by-association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute continues to fall flat.

Like I said. Little things. What you see as one drop in the bucket here, but the bucket is overflowing with millions of little drops.

He does NOTHING to filter his associations of these types. Hell, he HIRES THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS.

http://newsone.com/1748295/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/

Next, you couldn't resist continuing with the newsletters...already debunked, but you persist, because haters gonna hate. It's character assassination, because it doesn't accurately describe the person. He did let his name be put on all of it...

Which, at best, makes him wholly incompetent to be in office if he can't even be bothered to manage his own brand properly.

But you'd think he'd make an extra effort to clear his name when all these white power guys keep flocking to him... but no, he doesn't.

http://newsone.com/1758875/ron-pauls-white-supremacist-radio-connections/

He kept their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2233109...n_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white...ers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul’s-campaign/

And after it was reported on, he CONTINUED to take large campaign contributions from White Supremacists

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=940

Now, if we're done with the senselessly hateful mudslinging, how about back to Judge Samsung?

Sure, you be the example.

Last, but not least, since you're quick to point out that I need to listen to the man speak... Here's my personal favourite bit of his.

In his attempts to spread FUD about abortion, he famously claimed he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die",

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Now, if what he said was actually true... by not doing anything about it, making an attempt to save that supposed live baby... that would make him an accessory to murder.

Whoops.

He says a lot of stupid things. Which should give you pause before you would say something like "listen to him speak."

Lots of little things, man.

 

[Mini-Me]

On the UN issue, here's some backdrop: There was a horribly vicious "anti-Huntsman ad" created by Huntsman supporters who hated Ron Paul. Because of the uploader's likely connections to the Huntsman campaign, the Paul campaign - which Paul, in his characteristic managerial apathy, handed off to Jesse Benton to run - was apparently overzealous in trying to unmask them before the damage became irreparable. (I say "apparently" because campaign insiders have indicated that Benton sabotaged the campaign, doing things such as signing off on delivering $5000 worth of campaign signs and such directly to a landfill. He later went to work for Mitch McConnell.)

It was a bad move in my opinion, not because of any UN connection, but because it was an abuse of trademark law, which is a violation of libertarian principles. Ron Paul supporters debated the ethics of it extensively, and the overall consensus seemed to be that because the outcome of elections allows tyrants to rule arbitrarily, acting in a strictly libertarian manner might not be compatible with trench warfare election politics when the fate of an entire country hangs in the balance. That part may indeed be hypocritical for full-blown principled libertarians, and I still don't know how I feel about that, but whatever.

That said, it's deceptive to claim that Ron Paul "ran to the UN" for this without clarifying what he (or rather, his campaign) actually did: His campaign's lawyers went through the proper channels to file a UDRP complaint with a request to arbitrate through the WIPO. Really, UDRP was probably the campaign's best recourse in the case of pursuing the creators of the fake "anti-Huntsman" ad, because they just so happened to have relevant legal authority. Going to them to them out of necessity is not the same as endorsing their particular control over the matter though. It's just a matter of expedience, for the same reason anarchists have no choice but to drive on public roads. Libertarians believe the world should be different, but in the meantime we still have to actually live and operate within the confines of the world as it exists today. That's not hypocrisy; it's realism, and only malice would cause someone to insist otherwise. In this case, time was a critical factor, so using the most expedient avenue currently available was a necessity if the matter was going to be pursued at all.

Now, he has filed another UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com. The rest of the techdirt article regarding this news is odd though, because it is massively, massively ill-informed and poorly researched about the nature and content of the RonPaul.com site. RonPaul.com was NEVER for a single moment a real grassroots site, and it never helped coordinate anything for his campaigns. This is something pretty much all long-term Ron Paul supporters are well-aware of, considering none of us ever used it. It was a scam site operating under his name, passing itself off as an official page, and even taking donations under the pretense they were for him, then pocketing them. This complaint should have been filed ages ago. It now has a lot of pro-Paul videos and such posted for plausible deniability ("Oh, we're supporters, and we're so hurt that you're trying to seize the domain"), but they never helped campaign for him. The site's real purpose has always been about deceiving people for money, and it was plainly fraudulent during the campaign. While the owners are now taking steps now to appear legitimate, they are still taking advantage of consumer confusion (under the pretense they're not, because they are after all attempting to win the dispute), and the past fraud is enough to rule they have no business operating under another man's name.

The fundamental purpose of trademark law is to prevent this kind of fraud. A purely libertarian world would structure it differently in a legal sense (derive it from prohibitions against fraud as a violation of the NAP), but this use of trademark law is still perfectly kosher from a properly understood libertarian viewpoint, despite trademarks often being extended and abused beyond it. Really, it's likely even kosher from the viewpoint of most libertarians who oppose "intellectual property," like I do for the most part. It would take a really distorted straw man version of libertarianism - something its opponents love to adopt - to say that using trademark law here is hypocritical or unprincipled.

As far as using UDRP in particular in this instance, there's a practical reason: It's cheaper than suing, and they're not seeking the content of the site or damages, just the domain name. Why use the UN-affiliated WIPO instead of the NAF for arbitration? It was probably the choice of his lawyers, really. I'm not even sure if he's personally aware of the UN affiliation, because this is exactly the kind of thing he wouldn't take personal involvement with. If he is, I'll save my torch and pitchfork for a moment when it matters. There's an entire country crumbling here, so forgive me for not caring if one of the one man who fought hardest against it for decades is being arguably inconsistent in the most nitpicky ways I can possibly imagine.

One of Ron Paul's organizers in 2008 and 2012 is Jamie Kelso, white power webmaster, moderator of Stormfront, and former assistant of David Duke.
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111209/jamie-kelso-ron-paul-revolution-2007-2008

Come on, you're REALLY going to blame Ron Paul for the views of a guy who supported him? Ron Paul had nothing to do with this. The campaign had nothing to do with this. As soon as supporters realized who this guy was, well...see for yourself:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/14/video-young-cpacers-send-white-nationalist-packing/

Because of Ron Paul's views on foreign policy, welfare, the Federal Reserve, and no favoritism for Israel, he has attracted the attention of a lot of neo-Nazis who happen to share some of the same views for very different reasons. Sometimes they think he's "one of them," just closeted, and other times they lash out and rage when the realization dawns on them that he isn't. What's going on is people are trying to interpret Paul's views from a collectivist perspective when they superficially align, and they get a distorted understanding, because libertarian views are pretty incomprehensible without an understanding of individualism.

The bottom line is anyone with anti-government views outside the mainstream is naturally going to attract a wide assortment of anti-government views, because every fringe element by definition feels disenfranchised by the government and the establishment. Some people are this way for the right reasons, and some of them are this way for the wrong reasons. There are always going to be a lot of hateful crazies like racists mixed in, and they're usually going to stand out. People like this support Ron Paul because they're completely desperate for anyone who is anti-government and shares even a subset of their views. This causes all the "little things" to align, as you say, so it looks really bad in the eyes of someone looking to find dirt. If you want to see it, you will, but it doesn't mean it's there. There's indeed a pattern to all of these associations, but it stems from this desperate fringe disenfranchisement and gravitation rather than anything having to do with your innuendo about Ron Paul's "racism." It's just the nature of the beast. The fact that it coincides with the whole newsletters controversy created the perfect storm, and here we are.

Everything else is just details.

All of Climate Change denialism has been funded by a shill group called Doners Trust.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/02/21/donors-trust-the-atm-for-climate-denial/

Koch brothers.

More than 90% of researchers support the global warming research.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html

I used to buy into the whole AGW thing myself, so don't think I haven't seen both sides of this or where the money is coming from (the pro-AGW side gets government funding in the hundreds of billions...orders of magnitude higher than skeptics).

You clearly didn't read the paper I posted. Here are a few small points from it though, all of which are heavily supported:

• The vast majority of climatological papers do not contribute to AGW theory but instead assume it and examine societal implications (social, political, economic, etc.).
• A lot of papers directly or indirectly related to climate end up having their evidence and analysis inadvertantly undermine the IPCC's argument...and in order to be published, editors force them to issue irrelevant statements of support for the position in their conclusion, which are then counted toward the "consensus."
• Environmental fundamentalist non-scientists (who are named in the article, along with their positions and how they got them) have attained prominent positions in scientific organizations with veto power.
• Customary scientific practices now ignored in climate science, such as allowing the authors of scientific articles to rebut criticisms in the same article where they're published. Instead, their rebuttals are posted only months after superficial criticisms "debunk" their papers. Their rebuttals are never cited or acknowledged to exist after this point, and further research into the same line of inquiry is crushed by editors, because it was "debunked."

Read the paper if you like, or don't. I don't really expect you, but regardless, this isn't the thread for debating global warming (or Ron Paul for that matter, but I'm not getting dragged into a tangent of a tangent).

Dismissing little things that don't personally affect you is a great way to blind yourself to the pattern that I'm trying to present to you. Don't be so fucking myopic about this.

I'm "myopic" because I don't care that Ron Paul agrees with very common conservative fears about anti-Christian sentiment among secularists? Or am I myopic because I don't lump social conservatives in with racists the way you might? I'm assuming you're a liberal here, so common conservative positions like that may offend you, but I've been all over the political gamut. A lot of Christians feel this way: I don't really agree, and I think they're struggling to cope in a world without pro-Christian bias, but I can see why they interpret things this way, and I'm simply not touchy about it. Combined with outright smears, you're presenting a pattern of a sampling of irrelevant distractions that I don't see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul over, but they're not just "little things." Compared to the things I agree with Ron Paul on (and disagree with the vast majority of other politicians on), they're about as significant as disagreeing with his favorite kind of cookie.

Like I said. Little things. What you see as one drop in the bucket here, but the bucket is overflowing with millions of little drops.

Sorry, but I wasn't clear. I like the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I don't 100% like everyone involved, but I'd be proud to be associated with it, so this isn't one of those little areas where I disagree with Ron Paul. Am I racist yet?

He does NOTHING to filter his associations of these types. Hell, he HIRES THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS.

http://newsone.com/1748295/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/

I'm sorry it matters to you that Ron doesn't do anything to "filter his associations." That must be so mind-blowingly outrageous and scandalous to people who think it's important. However, no, he does not hire "these types" on a regular basis, if by "these types" you mean white nationalists and haters like David Duke. (That said, the people in that list fall into VERY different categories, and he is in fact friends with Lew Rockwell, Chuck Baldwin, and probably Thomas DiLorenzo...as well as Dennis Kucinich See how that works?).

Most of the people on that list are people who he has never had any personal relationship with...just people who happened to support him at one time or another, which he has absolutely no control over. You say, "little things..." I say, "Keep reading the bolded paragraph above, until the missing piece of the puzzle finally clicks."

On to the specific people mentioned in your link:

• Jules Mason hates black people and thinks Ron Paul does too? Not Ron Paul's problem. Well, maybe Mason will become less of a racist if he listens more to Ron Paul and less to James Powell. (LOL, doubtful, but still.)
• Richard Poplawski (a Stormfronter I guess?) is afraid of FEMA camps, so he supports Ron Paul? Not Ron Paul's problem. Maybe Poplawski will become less of a despicable Nazi if he listens more. (LOL, I wish.)
• James Von Brunn was a batshit nutcase who supported Ron Paul for opposing the Federal Reserve, but apparently only because Brunn hated Jews. He ended up shooting and killing a black security guard at a Holocaust museum. Should I list all of the crazy hateful murderers who have openly supported other Presidential candidates though? What about James Jay Lee, the crazy environmentalist shooter who took hostages at the Discovery Channel and was inspired by "Ishmael" and "An Inconvenient Truth?" There are crazies everywhere, of all political ideologies, and trying to blame Ron Paul for this is just asinine.
• Thomas DiLorenzo: AHA! Now here's a guy who Ron Paul might actually know. I'm not sure of it though, but it doesn't matter. I like DiLorenzo too. You can call him a neo-confederalist if you like, based on his support for secession, his belief the South had the legal right to secede, and his belief that Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves, just reuniting the union by any means necessary (and that it was wrong). Personally I agree with all three points, although I still don't like when the South OR the North are lionized; they were two corrupt tyrannical governments fighting for control, so I don't really see the obsession with "picking a side." Anyway, call him the devil if you want, but he's fine by me.*
• David Duke: Now we're back to actual racists who only supported Ron Paul without his personal involvement. The hazards of being an anti-government, anti-welfare, anti-Federal Reserve, etc. candidate abound, because neo-Nazis, prone to shallow thinking, invariably think you're their kind of people until they take a closer look. Never fret though: David Duke has seen the light and hates Ron Paul now.
• Lew Rockwell: He's not a terrible guy. He's a little shady, and I don't really trust him, but he's done more for human liberty than most, and I care more about his fruits than his motives. I used to think he was the ghostwriter for Ron Paul's newsletters, until the strong likelihood of it being James Powell pretty much exonerated him. He believes in a New World Order conspiracy? HOLY CRAP, hold the press! Who in their right minds would possibly believe that powerful people are interested in a one world government?!? Crazies, I say, CRAZIES. Burn them all! (Yes, I also believe in a New World Order conspiracy. It's pretty apparent, anyway.)
• Don Black: Okay, back to actual racists. This site sure does like to mix it up. He once had his picture taken with Paul and donated $500 which Paul greedily kept to spread the message of individual liberty (sorry, Don). The charge that this guy "regularly organizes 'Money Bombs'" for Ron Paul is just bizarre though. I've never heard it before and can't find any references to it, and I can't imagine what kind of association he could have even had that was distorted to that level. I suppose he helped promote one once or something, unbeknownst to...everybody? The Ron Paul moneybombs weren't "organized" in a top-down fashion like that. They were an emergent grassroots project organized on the Internet in a "bazaar" fashion by people posting threads, making videos, etc. Sometimes people would bicker and argue over the date and everything, and then there would be a vote or some critical mass that got people making cool videos, and it took off virally from there. As time went on, the campaign started to coordinate with the grassroots and give ideas for days and spacing and such, but that's about it.
• Chuck Baldwin: Yes, he is a friend of Ron Paul's. As a Christian pastor, he has some strongly socially conservative ideas about marriage, Islam, etc., but he's strongly anti-war, anti-police state, etc, which starkly differentiates him from, say, Santorum. The guy is right on a number of important federal issues, but his overtly religious social conservatism (and that of the Constitution Party) is just way too much for me to ever support, much like that of the Republican Party. The Constitution Party is mostly restrained and similar to the Libertarian Party and libertarians in general at the federal level, but their firm belief in state-level government intrusion (among a few other differences) has always kept the two camps at odds. Ron Paul on the other hand is religiously somewhere in between me and Chuck Baldwin, and considering he focuses primarily on federal issues, he's more tolerant of it. He even endorsed Baldwin for President in the 2008 general election after Bob Barr snubbed him and the whole multi-candidate endorsement (including Cynthia McKinney and another candidate I forget) didn't pan out. Paul's supporters ended up splitting our votes between Barr, Baldwin, Ron Paul write-ins, not voting, Vermin Supreme, etc., based on their personal preferences, because we're a pretty eclectic bunch. I wouldn't have endorsed Baldwin if I were Paul, but I can see why they're friends, much for the same reason I can see why Paul and Dennis Kucinich are friends (and really, Baldwin is much closer to Paul at the federal level). I'd be friends with both too.

*Quick note on DiLorenzo: If you really want to understand what's going on here, it's pretty simple: The SPLC has told you who to bark at, and you obey. You have inextricably associated anything having to do with secession, the South, and disapproval of Lincoln to slavery and racism alone. Because of this, your worldview cannot comprehend the existence of people who see a baby in the bathwater of the South and yet still totally abhorr slavery and racism.

That's QUITE the mix of people. I saved two people for separate paragraphs.

First, Willis Carto: Your article lists him as a Holocaust denier, Hitler admirer, and white supremacist. I suppose it's a blessing he's dead, but Ron Paul quite possibly got ahold of his mailing list, and he's feeling none too guilty about trying to convert a few racist morons to a better worldview. According to the linked New York Times article:

Mr. Paul is not unaware of that strain among his supporters. Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.

Mr. Paul said he did not recall that conversation, which was first reported in the libertarian publication Reason, and doubted that he would have known what lists were being used on his behalf. Yet he said he would not have a problem seeking support from such a list.

“I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”

Such an attitude might seem inconceivable to you, but it's exactly the attitude I would take too. I'm not saying, "Well, if he says so...." I'm saying it's flat-out the right attitude to take, and I think people afraid of "looking racist" are socially conditioned into obsession with superficial image, as maintained through explicit shunning rituals. Does that make me a racist? Or do my actual views on race count for something too?

Now, onto William Alexander “Bill” White, who's really a piece of work. He claimed that he and Stormfront regularly met with Ron Paul and his aides. Actually, Bill White was Jamie Kirchick's neo-Nazi Stormfront buddy and source for the newsletters. After Ron Paul's spokesman declared white racialism to be a "small ideology," he felt so betrayed by Ron Paul defying his newsletter expectations (which had been built up over years) that he handed his collection over to liberal Jamie Kirchick, who hypocritically DID associate himself with a neo-Nazi racist by choice. Go figure. Anyway, he handed them over to destroy Ron Paul out of spite, and he later publicized a lie about "regular meetings" for self-promotion (it made him and his ilk look better) and to simultaneously harm Paul's reputation further.

Why didn't Ron Paul sue for libel? He never said, and as far as I know he was never asked. Lawsuits cost money though, and I can't imagine it would have been worth it to file suit at the time: White's missive wasn't plastered all over websites and newspapers and TV shows all day everyday like the newsletters were, so from a cost/benefit point of view, I sure wouldn't have bothered until it actually came to count for something (and it never did).

You're free to find Bill White a credible source if you want, and you're free to find the lack of a libel lawsuit damning. I suppose you will given you're convinced by all of the other hoopla about Ron Paul's supposed racism. Still, it simply doesn't fit his personality or the views he champions though.

If Ron Paul is actually a white nationalist in disguise, he's done a terrible job, because he's turned countless people on to ideological libertarianism instead, and he never became President either to impose his secret racist agenda. It would also take a white nationalist an inordinate amount of effort to so consistently champion libertarianism and expound upon his racial views (as he does in the video links I gave) with a straight face...yet if you check out his body language, he's dead serious. It also doesn't fit with things like this from his ancient past, when he was a young man:
http://oi46.tinypic.com/2ai4jzr.jpg
Or this, also relating to his past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4bEvqMXmM8

The truth is, Ron Paul has a very different personality type from most people, especially most politicians. He was never really cut out to be a policitian. He's a bookish nerdy type who became interested in Austrian economics through reading Friedrich Hayek and then Ludwig von Mises, and he decided to run for office on a lark a few years after Bretton Woods failed to get some things off his chest about fiat money. He never really expected to be an effective or electable politician, but he ended up spending twelve terms in Congress. He spent the majority of that time making no votes all by himself, speaking truth to power with little to no support, being alternately ignored and jeered at, facing constant primary attempts from his own party, and even facing his own party supporting his Democratic opponent at times.

The kind of person who has that kind of singular courage and fortitude, which I have never seen before in such amounts from any other human being, is not the kind of person to feign libertarian views for the course of his entire life in order to secretly advance some white nationalist agenda. If you ever cared to consider him fairly, you'd realize that the thought of it is just absurd.

There's a reason he has never been caught on video saying anything racist: It's just not who he is. He has an extremely thick skin, he is generally not image-conscious in the least, and he cares little about what people think of him. This makes him not care about petty issues like worrying about who he's supposed to denounce to look good, and it makes him not pay any attention to anything said in his name. It's extremely easy for people who hate him to use this against him to smear him, but that doesn't make him a bad person or a racist. His campaign managers have always had to twist his arm for him to pay any attention to his image or tailor his message for an audience. They were often successful during his Congressional campaigns in Texas, where he played up conservative issues and essentially pandered, but it just never came naturally to him. You can plainly see it when he talks off the cuff, like when he defended heroin legalization in front of a conservative South Carolina debate audience.

Which, at best, makes him wholly incompetent to be in office if he can't even be bothered to manage his own brand properly.

That's only strictly true from the perspective of someone who believes the job of the President involves running the country. In his case, he'd do what matters from a high-level standpoint, but he wouldn't manage his subordinates very well. At the very least, we wouldn't have an establishment politician in office, and I'll settle for that until I can get a libertarian who understands policy AND management.

But you'd think he'd make an extra effort to clear his name when all these white power guys keep flocking to him... but no, he doesn't.

http://newsone.com/1758875/ron-pauls-white-supremacist-radio-connections/

No, I wouldn't think that. YOU would think he'd make an extra effort to clear his name when all these white power guys keep flocking to him. I on the other hand would think that he doesn't care for appeasing people looking for an excuse to hate him. He's said time and again that they don't represent his views, and he's stated his actual views, and haters don't care. They just prefer piling on with the innuendo and guilt by tenuous association, which has nothing to do with "Ron Paul's racism" and everything to do with anti-government people of all types desperately flocking to anyone who shares an even superficially similar anti-government mentality.

"Oh, but he could denounce them!" If Paul had started publicly denouncing people in order to "look better," there's no way he'd call out literally everyone he was supposed to be denouncing. All of a sudden, haters would be posting things like, "See! Ron Paul condemned David Duke for supporting him, but he didn't condemn James von Brunn!" Tell me with a straight face that there's ANYTHING he could say, or could have said five years ago, or six years ago, that would satisfy you.

I think there's another dimension to this as well, and it's one I've noticed in myself: Ron Paul is primarily a libertarian. To him, racism is just an ugly form of collectivism...along with socialism, and fascism, and corporatism, and Communism. If he were to distance himself from everyone he found morally lacking, he'd have to lock himself in a tiny little room with the rest of the libertarians. When you're the kind of person who believes that arbitrary government coercion and violence is an evil - even one as great as racist ideology (if not racist laws) - you have to make a choice: Are you going to talk to anyone willing to listen, or are you going to sit there and judge them for their current views, and accomplish nothing? To a libertarian, people like David Duke, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney all share the same fundamental mental shortcomings, because they believe that groups matter more than individuals. That's pretty much how we categorize things.

Take me for example: I'm plainly aware of mainstream opinions on these sort of things, and that racists are basically like child molesters who eat babies on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and everyone else is far, far above them on a moral level. Personally though, I often find certain neoconservative and statist views held by partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats to be grating and repugnant on an equal basis with racism, depending on severity and stridentness. I'd rather hear someone rant about some stereotype of XYZ race than hear someone rant about nuking Iran or confiscating private firearms, both of which carry a far more serious risk of violent and coercive action. I'm still plainly aware of mainstream opinions on these sort of things, but I don't mentally categorize people the same way. To you, racists might be "subhuman wastes of air." To me, they're morons like any other, and some morons can be fixed.

If someone you were talking with started saying a whole bunch of racist things, you'd probably immediately denounce them as a racist and dismiss them. I might even dismiss them similarly, but for different reasons: I'd dismiss them because they're too antagonistic to talk with, and/or because their views simply aren't popular enough for me to consider them a "threat" of catching on. The whole "someone's wrong on the Internet" thing becomes less of a compulsion when it comes to racists. Still, if I'm bored enough or looking for a distraction, I might actually try debating with them the same way I debate with people who believe in gun control or endless war. You never know...sometimes people see the light. (I don't think I've ever totally succeeded, but whatever.) I'm confident enough in my views that I don't feel fear of being "overtaken" by theirs, and I really don't put them on a much different level of imbecility than anyone else. Sure, I could put on a show and denounce them in the strongest possible terms to look superior in everyone else's eyes if I wanted, and then I'd be the good little citizen I'm supposed to be, showing the appropriate level of offendedness for everything...but image in that sense doesn't really matter to me as much as authenticity.

Serious question: Does that help you better understand the radically different worldview that libertarians like Ron Paul approach this stuff from? I'm HOPING you can be reached here, in the sense of coming to a more respectful understanding.

He kept their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2233109...n_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

So would I, and it's their loss. I could put the money to a better cause than them. If you think that makes me a racist, I think your definition of racism is hopelessly broad and indulgent of political theater.

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white...ers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul’s-campaign/

That's a broken link, so I can't examine just how distorted your view is here again. Let me guess: Same old garbage?

And after it was reported on, he CONTINUED to take large campaign contributions from White Supremacists

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=940

OH, THE HUMANITY! HE'S NOT GIVING MONEY TO RACISTS! Is that really what you want?

Sure, you be the example.

You attacked, and I'm defending, so the ball is in your court to stop tearing a good man down out of a malicious and apparently deliberate misunderstanding.

Last, but not least, since you're quick to point out that I need to listen to the man speak... Here's my personal favourite bit of his.

In his attempts to spread FUD about abortion, he famously claimed he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die",

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Now, if what he said was actually true... by not doing anything about it, making an attempt to save that supposed live baby... that would make him an accessory to murder.

Whoops.

He says a lot of stupid things. Which should give you pause before you would say something like "listen to him speak."

Lots of little things, man.

Wow, you just totally crossed the line with that one, twisting it in the most shameless possible way. Do you live, breathe, and drink hatred all day long?

He was a young kid in residency, and he saw people with a lot more power and influence than him do something horrible to a live baby, but there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. It's comparable to soldiers who see their comrades commit atrocities in war, then later feel guilty telling the tale after having done nothing: Saving a baby in that condition was simply beyond his power. It was almost certainly not viable (since it died a few moments later). His disgust was at how it was handled while it was still alive...and at the inhumanity of abortion in the first place, an act which considered that baby to be nothing more than a sack of flesh. He would have been treated like a madman, restrained, and prosecuted if he intervened in any way and tried to save a baby that everyone else (doctor, mother, etc.) already considered dead for all intents and purposes, and he couldn't have done anything except give it more dignity...at the cost of ever being able to help people as an obstetrician in the future.

Should he have helped anyway, no matter how futile it was? I don't know. I don't doubt for a second that what he said was true, and I don't doubt that he fully recognizes what he confessed to seeing. I also believe that if you're going to judge him for it instead of paying any mind to the people who were actually in control of the situation, you are far too cruel and unempathetic to be making moral judgments against anyone.

 

[Qinsp]

Why sling mud at Dr. Paul?

Can anyone name an elected Federal Official who is not a crook?

http://sopatrack.com/

See how honest your reps are.

This is how the game is played. You write a check to get laws passed, voting at the polls doesn't.

 

[Qinsp]

PS - The President was supposed to be the least important elected official. Many thought America did need a King. And the states should have autonomy.

My, how things change...

 

[Qinsp]

DIDN'T need a King.

 

[rat]

The founder of Stormfront had his picture taken with Ron Paul once, yes. And? Is this guilt by ten-second-association with a guy who he almost certainly didn't recognize? Heck, I'd be surprised if he knows to this day that he had his picture taken with that guy.

Just to further accentuate the amount of denialism that goes around when it comes to associations... only to be met with a "so what?"

That wasn't just a picture and a ten-second-association.

He was on Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

http://www.nndb.com/people/485/000165987/

You can only say "But...but...but... it doesn't matter! Look at the ISSUES!" for so long before you have to stop and look at what it is that drives Paul's position on these issues.

For that one issue you agree with him on, you're still glossing over whether or not you'd agree with his reasons for deciding on that issue.

States' Rights? Sure. States' Rights because the Federal Government is preventing states from discriminating against blacks? Well, then, yeah, I'm not going to agree with him on States' Rights in THAT case, then.

Here's another example of his total inconsistency on issues.

He was championed as the man who was against wasteful government spending.

That's his common argument against things like...

...the Rosa Parks medal. He said it was a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill mentions a separate fund. All profit from this fund is sent to the Treasury. No actual taxpayer dollars would be used.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

The bill itself is less than a page long, so it certainly wouldn't have taken him long to read it... had he bothered to do so before voting on it and explaining his reasons for voting no.

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604...ts-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

The spending was considered so unnecessary and wasteful that even the Pentagon spoke out against this.

But didn't bother to repeat his argument those times about unconstitutional spending as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

So, in the end, while I agree with him that there are many wastes of taxpayer dollars... it's funny when those arguments show up and when they don't. And I certainly won't agree with him for his actual reasons for bringing that argument up in the case with he Rosa Parks Medal.

Little things, man. They add up.

For every thing you say is guilt by association or irrelevant to the issues, it's another drop in the bucket that makes one say "What the hell IS going on here?"

 

[///AMG]

this is getting really off topic. I dont even know what its about anymore reading the 4th page haha.

 

[Qinsp]

this is getting really off topic. I dont even know what its about anymore reading the 4th page haha.

It's about 4 pages.

 

[Mini-Me]

Just to further accentuate the amount of denialism that goes around when it comes to associations... only to be met with a "so what?"

That wasn't just a picture and a ten-second-association.

He was on Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

http://www.nndb.com/people/485/000165987/

Right, my mistake. Here's the whole committee, assuming it's accurate:
http://www.nndb.com/org/520/000168016/

Let's apply your standard of association consistently here: How well do you think Ron Paul knows, say...Peter Thiel, Barry Manilow, and Drew Carey? Are they all Stormfronters too now? Is Ron Paul personally responsible for everyone on that list? How much influence do you think Black had here?

You're jumping at shadows. There are a lot of shadows to jump at, but I've already given obvious the logical reason why: Anti-government candidates will always attract a variety of disenfranchised fringe groups due to their desperation at finding anyone even superficially like them. It's the nature of the beast. It's completely unavoidable, but the presence of the newsletter controversy made it both especially pronounced in Ron Paul's case and especially easy to exploit.

You can only say "But...but...but... it doesn't matter! Look at the ISSUES!" for so long before you have to stop and look at what it is that drives Paul's position on these issues.

For that one issue you agree with him on, you're still glossing over whether or not you'd agree with his reasons for deciding on that issue.

States' Rights? Sure. States' Rights because the Federal Government is preventing states from discriminating against blacks? Well, then, yeah, I'm not going to agree with him on States' Rights in THAT case, then.

As I said before, he spent twelve terms in Congress pissing into the wind against being unanimously ignored or opposed with apparently nothing to lose. A man with that kind of courage and perseverance is not going to be elaborately arguing in favor of a philosophy - libertarianism - that he doesn't even support or understand. He has been speaking publicly for thirty years, and never once has anyone produced a video of him saying anything remotely like what was in those newsletters. I'm sorry you're too infatuated with innuendo and hatred to comprehend this, but it's the truth.

In short, desire for discrimination is not even close to what's driving his position. That idea is certainly one of the reasons why Stormfronters have been drawn to him, but projecting their desires onto him is just ridiculous given who he is and how long he has championed libertarianism.

Regardless: Ron Paul holds the same position as I do regarding federal power. I have my reasons for it, and considering it was primarily his influence that shifted me from a social democrat to a libertarian, I'd say I have a better idea than you that his reasoning is largely the same as mine. However, even if I am being duped and he has ulterior motives unknown to me, he would not have the power as President to affect state policies anyway. Therefore, his state-level motives are totally immaterial. He would only have the power as President to restrain the federal government in the same ways we both desire, so...ultimately, his supposed "secret racist reasons" would be totally irrelevant in practice anyway. By creating a ton of libertarians (who don't believe in arbitrary coercion at the state level either), he has effectively undermined the practical impact of people with such motives as well. Basically, if he's a white nationalist, he's been hilariously counterproductive to that cause with respect to its strength vs. libertarianism.

Here's another example of his total inconsistency on issues.

He was championed as the man who was against wasteful government spending.

That's his common argument against things like...

...the Rosa Parks medal. He said it was a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill mentions a separate fund. All profit from this fund is sent to the Treasury. No actual taxpayer dollars would be used.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

The bill itself is less than a page long, so it certainly wouldn't have taken him long to read it... had he bothered to do so before voting on it and explaining his reasons for voting no.

If his reason for voting against this was all about racist resentment of Rosa Parks like you insinuate, he wouldn't have usd the same reasoning to vote against Mother Theresa's medal. Similarly, he wouldn't routinely use Rosa Park as an inspirational example in speeches either (e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/04/idUS206214+04-Feb-2008+BW20080204).

On the subject of money, I'm not familiar with where the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund originally obtained its funding (e.g. taxpayers?), or whether Ron Paul was simply mistaken on this point. For someone as fed up as Paul, who voted no on almost everything, it wouldn't have been hard to make an erroneous subject on the point of funding, considering the regularity of feel-good bills passed at the expense of taxpayers. Regardless, the bill was still unconstitutional due to no relevant authority being granted to Congress, so a no vote was the right call anyway.

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

This on the other hand is Constitutional under Congress's ability to coin silver and gold as money (these were silver coins). Maybe you don't care for that kind of reasoning, but Ron Paul does...and I get the feeling this might have been like Christmas come early for him, even if they were just commemorative coins.

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604...ts-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

The spending was considered so unnecessary and wasteful that even the Pentagon spoke out against this.

But didn't bother to repeat his argument those times about unconstitutional spending as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

So, in the end, while I agree with him that there are many wastes of taxpayer dollars... it's funny when those arguments show up and when they don't. And I certainly won't agree with him for his actual reasons for bringing that argument up in the case with he Rosa Parks Medal.

Ron Paul has always been critical of unrestrained military contract spending in comparison to how veterans are treated, and he has always been forthcoming about wanting to support disenfranchised veterans better in certain areas [as long as there is no extra unconstitutional language attached]. This includes better VA healthcare, and it surprisingly includes medals as well. It's not surprising that the Pentagon has other priorities. I tend to agree with their assessment in this case, and I question Ron Paul's judgment here, but he's not acting entirely unusually either.

Is it perfectly consistent with his typical Constitutionalism? I'd have to read the bill to be sure, but my guess is "probably not." Regardless, Ron Paul is consistent by human standards. It doesn't mean he's never made a mistake or supported something stupid. DOMA is stupid. This legislation is arguably stupid. It's pretty easy to find questionable deviations from absolute consistency over the course of TWELVE terms in Congress, but it doesn't detract from the fact that his consistency is leagues above that of other politicians...who it would be pointless to even have debates about regarding their consistency.

I'm not going to put Ron Paul on a pedestal as an example of perfection everlasting and completely rage about him the moment he steps out of line. If I did, that would be called "borderline personality disorder." You speak of "little things" like this as if they matter, when every other politician alternately supports crap like a totalitarian police state, endless war, or enormous social programs. On the spectrum of scale, there is simply no comparison.

Little things, man. They add up.

For every thing you say is guilt by association or irrelevant to the issues, it's another drop in the bucket that makes one say "What the hell IS going on here?"

Actually, I know what's going on. I already told you what's going on. All of the "racist Ron Paul" stuff is a natural consequence of the intersection of:

1. A personality and libertarian bent that most people don't understand (but which I do, putting me in a better position than, say you, to evaluate its impact)
2. The impact of the newsletters, which were originally allowed to be released as a consequence of 1.
3. An anti-government attitude which unavoidably attracts every sort of disenfranchised anti-government type with anything in common whatsoever...magnified by 2.
4. Votes on legislation which are a combination of 1. and ordinary human biases and imperfections.

All of this is alternately - and maliciously, by those who actually oppose Ron Paul for entirely different political reasons - insisted to be racism by people who:

• Do not/refuse to understand 1.'s impact on 2.
• Do not/refuse to understand 2.'s impact on 3.
• Do not/refuse to understand 1.'s impact on 4, particularly in light of their refusal to understand the other points.

Logical enough, and no racism necessary.

 

[Mini-Me]

Oops, two typos:
...If his reason for voting against this was all about racist resentment of Rosa Parks like you insinuate, he wouldn't have used* the same reasoning to vote against Mother Theresa's medal...

and

...For someone as fed up as Paul, who voted no on almost everything, it wouldn't have been hard to make an erroneous assumption on the point of funding...

 

[Mini-Me]

More errata:

...There are a lot of shadows to jump at, but I've already given the obvious* logical reason why...

 

[DTN107]

I flip to the last page of this thread... and wth happen?!

 

[Mini-Me]

I flip to the last page of this thread... and wth happen?!

Yeah, I know...quick rundown:

• Ducman casually mentioned Ron Paul's warnings about corruption on page 1.
• techrat made a comment about him being corrupt.
• Someone asked why.
• techrat posted an enormous wall of links referring to a debunked and poorly researched report about corruption (the first class ticket scandal), a few random issues, and tons of the tired old "Ron Paul's a racist" stuff, thereby sending the thread off its rails and into the Andromeda galaxy.
• I posted an obligatory nearly-exhaustive defense, and he took it as an invitation to post more of the same attacks instead of letting the issue rest for Judge Samsung's sake. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[rat]

TLDR: Paultard brings up Ron Paul randomly.

Additional Paultard handwave his white power associations and say "Focus on the issues, man!"

So yeah, it's all queer as blazes in here.