As if Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) didn't have enough troubles getting anyone other than his own supporters to take him seriously, the latest blow comes in the form of endorsements ...

... from white supremacists. Todd Heywood brings us the news:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul, whose long-shot campaign has been gaining media attention in recent days, apparently has the support of an unusual constituency -- the white supremacist movement.

[Storm Front], a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul's bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. [Storm Front] has also endorsed Paul for president.

"Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency," the [Storm Front] endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul's plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist," the endorsement continues. "Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008."

The white supremacy movement directs potential donors to the independent ThisNovember5th.com web site, which is a fundraising mechanism for the Paul campaign. The web site netted Paul $4.2 million from some 37,000 people on Nov. 5 -- a record amount raised in a single day through the Internet by any Republican candidate.

(Michigan Messenger (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404))

It gets worse:

The Houston Chronicle documented Paul as having written some questionable materials himself. In his 1992 independent political newsletter, Paul reported on a survey of blacks. He has refused to provide the survey to anyone. His comments include:
• "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

• "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

• "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

• "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

(ibid)

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/story.jpg (http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/racists_for_ron)
Ron Paul: Hope for America?

Over at Slog, Erica C. Barnett reminds:

I just hope all those Seattle liberals who put “Ron Paul: Hope for America” signs in their windows because he’s, like, against the drug war and the war on terror or something at least learn a little more about the candidate they’re so wholeheartedly supporting.

(Barnett (http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/racists_for_ron))

Of course, you know what they say: There's no such thing as bad press.

Onward, Ron. And upward!

(What? Maybe this will "energize the party base".)
____________________

Notes:

Heywood, Todd A. "White Supremacists Rallying Around Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign". MichiganMessenger.com. November 12, 2007. See http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404

Barnett, Erica C. "Racists for Ron!" November 14, 2007. See http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/racists_for_ron

This contribution has been known to Ron Paul's supporters for quite some time and is old news. The racist comments were published under a publication to which he gave his name and nothing else. Doing a bit more research will give you the entire story. I'm a bit busy right now but if you haven't figured it out by the time I'm free, I'll do the work for you and show why this is bs. Ron Paul is very much against racism.

And this, btw, is coming from a non-white Bengali immigrant in case you wanted to know.

I knew Ron Paul was to good to be true. And the article is correct, go to ********** and you'll see the abundant amount of support that he has. This will turn away alot of voters, most of them are oblivious to his past, so it might not make a difference after all.

Still busy but just to point out how ridiculously easy it is to get to the bottom of this, just going to Ron Paul on wiki gives you this:

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[58] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[33] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#1996_campaign_controversy

Feel free to check the links referenced in there. Also feel free to look at the numerous things he's personally written over the last 30 years and show me anything similar to the racist comments in your OP.

Doing a bit more research will give you the entire story

Well, the thing is some of the argument leads to dead-ends because I'm not going to subscribe to a magazine just for this. Nonetheless, I did find an alleged transcript of a portion of an article from Texas Monthly:

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "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." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but the campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

(Everything2.com (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1443176))

I admit, it doesn't help his case much.

Well, the thing is some of the argument leads to dead-ends because I'm not going to subscribe to a magazine just for this. Nonetheless, I did find an alleged transcript of a portion of an article from Texas Monthly:



I admit, it doesn't help his case much.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”

As stated already, he's taken responsibility for the comments and has said they never should have been released under his name, even though they were someone else's words. Isn't that a refreshing change? Someone in congress that actually takes responsibility.

Oh gawd...lol
This is truly pathetic.
Anyone who thinks that the people who support RP dictate his charater in any logical way is preposterous.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say your voting for someone else Tiassa?.
You know I'm sure there was a child molester or rapist who supports Hillary, does that make her any more of a child molester or rapist?

Some peoples lack of reason baffles me.

You know I'm sure there was a child molester or rapist who supports Hillary, does that make her any more of a child molester or rapist?

If Hillary let that molester write her public statements for her, stood by them, and only later backed down when it was clear she wasn't going to win the argument.

Duh.

Some peoples lack of reason baffles me

Indeed.

• • •

As a side note, Paul supporters ought to consider what's important here. I mean, think about it:

• Ron Paul attempts to profit from racism (e.g., allowing statements in his name in order to get political traction)
• Ron Paul stood by statements issued in his name
• Ron Paul later retracts, when he realizes how damaging the situation is
• Ron Paul supporters complain that people noticed he tried to profit from racism

If you want to help your candidate, you might consider heading on over to Storm Front and other hate organizations and explaining to them how their endorsement is mistaken.

Oh, wait ... it's just easier to complain, isn't it?

Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer. But let's take this a little bit further. S*F is a pro-white group. They gave him donations. What if the NAACP (pro-black group) gave him some too? Would there be an equal uproar? Oh, hell no. If LaRaza (pro-Hispanic) gave him money, would there be outrage? Oh, hell no. Why are whites apologizing for being/supporting whites? :confused:

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party. He should switch to (I) already and stop BSing.

the libertarian principles sound ancient Republicanish, but no person who actually belongs to today's party has anything in common with Paul.

look who supports him - extreme left who think the Democrats are a right wing party.

What if the NAACP (pro-black group) gave him some too? Would there be an equal uproar?

Sandy, I would greatly appreciate your consideration of the following question:

Is there no difference between advocacy of equal rights and white supremacy?

Why are whites apologizing for being/supporting whites?

Because it's not just about supporting whites; it's about condemning people for the color of their skin. That you apparently can't tell the difference ...?

• • •


look who supports him - extreme left who think the Democrats are a right wing party

Interesting.

As a side note, Paul supporters ought to consider what's important here. I mean, think about it:\

• Ron Paul attempts to profit from racism (e.g., allowing statements in his name in order to get political traction)
• Ron Paul stood by statements issued in his name
• Ron Paul later retracts, when he realizes how damaging the situation is
• Ron Paul supporters complain that people noticed he tried to profit from racism

If you want to help your candidate, you might consider heading on over to Storm Front and other hate organizations and explaining to them how their endorsement is mistaken.

Oh, wait ... it's just easier to complain, isn't it?

1. If you'd read the article, you'd see that Ron Paul was very loosely affiliated with the newsletter in question. By claiming that this was a personal attempt on his part to profit from racism based on that is very Karl Rove-y of you.

2 and 3. While I admit I would have liked it better if he'd simply rejected the comments from the get-go, I can understand that people make mistakes. I can understand that his campaign aides told him not to do so. And I can also look at his history in politics and see that this doesn't even remotely resemble anything else he's said in the past 30 years.

And quite frankly, you're being a little ridiculous. You made this thread asking for reactions from people who had already formed opinions of Ron Paul (a poll even!). And then you say I shouldn't have reacted? Pfft. You're just interested in stirring the pot.

As for your comment about going to **********, why would I? I don't particularly care for those groups. If they support Paul, great. But if they didn't, I wouldn't be interested in getting their support. So whatever.

As for Ron Paul's actual views on racism:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

So... what, guilt by indirect association? Like sandy said, what if the NAACP or some GLBT group supported him? Does that mean their interests become his interests? No. Just because I would vote for Ron Paul doesn't mean we entirely agree. Besides, the voters choose him, he doesn't choose his voters.

Interesting.
let me rephrase that: the majority of his support comes from the far left. but some comes from White Power groups which are the far right.

let me rephrase that: the majority of his support comes from the far left. but some comes from White Power groups which are the far right.

Do you have a source for this demography?

Do you have a source for this demography?

google news.

google news.

Link to an article?

Is there no difference between advocacy of equal rights and white supremacy?

There is a difference, of course. But I wasn't aware the NAACP advocated for equal rights at this time. In fact, I think it would be tough for them to do so, considering blacks have equal rights (and in many cases extraordinary protections, such as hate crime laws) in this country in every region. The NAACP, who I have had plenty of experience with on the job, largely operate as political enforcers and vote-getters for a certain ilk of black politician.

Now I'm certain Tiassa will call me a racist for saying all this, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is the NAACP who largely engage in racism, and the majority of it is against their own people. For example, one of the most bizarre interviews I ever conducted was with a regional leader of the organization. Basically, he had chosen to inject himself in a local political dispute with a city council by labellings several blacks "house niggers" and "Uncle Tom's" for having the temerity to oppose the black mayor and vote with the "white people," the majority of whom were fellow Democrats. This is all anecdotal, of course. But where I live I have seen little from the NAACP beyond the sort of incident I just outlined. They behave this way over and over...

This is all anecdotal, of course. But where I live I have seen little from the NAACP beyond the sort of incident I just outlined. They behave this way over and over...

Must be a regional thing.

considering blacks have equal rights

Well, in theory. I mean, blacks have had equal rights ever since the Fourteenth Amendment. Hasn't meant much in practice.

For example, one of the most bizarre interviews I ever conducted ....

That's so cute ....

Honestly, we all know politicians lie and don't reveal thier true opinions if it hurts them. It's a popularity game until they can get infiltrate. Anyone who thinks a racist would reveal they are who is trying to run for office is retarded. Of course they would deny it.

The point is, can you sniff'em out for what they really are and thier agenda.

Racist and supremacist groups know damn well what they have to do. if you go to the front, they discuss this all the time regarding how they need to appear nonradical, gain supporters and keep thier true intentions hidden otherwise they will get nowhere. They mutate and camoflauge as well. They hope to gain power and then do thier deeds, simple as that.

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party. He should switch to (I) already and stop BSing.

And in addition to my request for your source concerning Paul's supporters, do Republican voters not care about about gun rights? Lower taxes? Smaller government? Decreasing our national debt?

Oh, wait ... it's just easier to complain, isn't it?

Yeah, and your doing a great job at it.:rolleyes:

Must be a regional thing.

It's possible, as I acknowledge, but doubtful. Several colleagues of mine have interviewed high-up's or people located in other regions and they report pretty much the same thing: The NAACP does very little equality advocacy and operates a sort of political henchman for the black establishment.

Well, in theory. I mean, blacks have had equal rights ever since the Fourteenth Amendment. Hasn't meant much in practice.

No, it hasn't — up to a point. However, post-Civil Rights and in terms of contemporary American life, I don't see the sort of inequalities your statement seems to nod toward (Jim Crow, Seperate but Equal, etc). Most of the inequalities afflicting blacks today are socio-economic issues that aren't institutionalized and maintained by a power structure that is vested in inequality, though I'm sure you would probably disagree. In fact, I would argue the NAACP actually harms the chances for racial equality in certain instances. One that immediately springs to mind is the vicious (and rankly dishonest) campaign it recently ran to ensure the outdated Voting Rights Act remains in place in Southern states. Blacks don't have a problem voting in the South, but you would never believe that if you listened to the NAACP.

Voted Other; was neutral before, against now.

Though your source for his racist statements doesn't appear to source itself.

edit: found the article from 96 http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I've also heard many people complaining that Ron Paul's embracing of some of the extremist conservative values may split the Republican vote, which can only help the Democrats. Thoughts?

Here's a man who I think would be in the "know" desrcibing intelligently and rationaly his sentiments on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUfZJcJi_A&feature=related

Voted Other; was neutral before, against now.

Though your source for his racist statements doesn't appear to source itself.

edit: found the article from 96 http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I would just like to reiterate that those racist comments were not made by Paul himself, and that he personally has never said nor written anything that is racist.

I would just like to reiterate that those racist comments were not made by Paul himself, and that he personally has never said nor written anything that is racist.

(1) He attempted to profit (politically) from those statements.
(2) When answering for the statements in 1996—see the article provided by Exhumed—Paul explained himself in a context that acknowledges point (1) above.

Pulling back to the "He didn't write it himself" excuse now that the former argument—

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

(Bernstein (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749))

—is considered insufficient doesn't really do much to help his case.

He should have denounced the 1992 comments the first time he was called out on them. Better yet, he should have prevented them from going out in the first place.

Too late, too late.

• • •

A Note for Exhumed

Every account I've encountered so far looks back to 1992 newsletters circulated with some form of Paul's approval. Unless I get my hands on one of those documents, there won't be much of an MLA or Chicago-Turabian citation to write. In the meantime, though, we should take note that the Paul campaign is not saying the comments were never written or distributed. Admittedly, the closer we get to the originals, the better. Hopefully, someone will cough up a PDF or something.

Also, good eye on the '96 article. Thank ye.

Too late for who? Obviously not for Paul's supporters, a number of of whom are non-white and don't think Paul is a racist in any way, shape or form. And since you're just repeating the same point over and over, I'll just copy and paste what I had to say earlier about them.

"1. If you'd read the article, you'd see that Ron Paul was very loosely affiliated with the newsletter in question. By claiming that this was a personal attempt on his part to profit from racism based on that is very Karl Rove-y of you.

2 and 3. While I admit I would have liked it better if he'd simply rejected the comments from the get-go, I can understand that people make mistakes. I can understand that his campaign aides told him not to do so. And I can also look at his history in politics and see that this doesn't even remotely resemble anything else he's said in the past 30 years."

Tiassa: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

I believe that's a copy of the text in one of the articles mentioned in your OP (LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM).

Wow, I wonder if he's related to Jeff ....

Okay, okay. Seriously ... thank you for finding that. My first perusal doesn't help Paul's case, but I'll read through it again.

It wasn't meant to help his case. Like I've already said, I, along with the rest of Paul's supporters, have come to dismiss these articles and continue to support Paul because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread.

I wish you'd stop making it seem like these are his words, or that he ever endorsed them. That he did not reject them at the time is true, and unfortunate, but that's the only point to be made.

He didn't reject them at the time, and thus profited politically. That's my big objection. Once one has reaped the benefits, it's disingenuous to distance oneself from such an issue by saying, "But I didn't write it". He's already received and spent the political capital; quite obviously, such remarks won him some dubious support. Regardless of his current defense, such dubious endorsements present his campaign with a challenge.

Distance himself from the issue? He's claimed responsibility for his mistake and regrets that it happened. The fact that he didn't write is just that, a fact.

And just for you, I went ahead and visited ********** to see the endorsement. Do you know why people there endorse him? It's because of illegal immigration, the war, the economy, foreign policy. The same reasons I support him. In fact some posters there actually blasted Paul because race isn't an issue for him. So why should Paul not take their support? He's already publicly denounced racism. If those groups still choose to endorse him, then it's not because of race.

Hmm I'm disappointed tiassa. Racism? Ho hum. How much was the public outcry at the Watson gaffe? It sure did not affect his book signing any, or his reception by his peers, public appearances of outraged propriety notwithstanding.

Here's something more fun to debate:



The appeal of Ron Paul is as simple as his message. He wants to take the United States back to the "good old days," before we started essentially unprovoked wars against foreign powers that were no imminent threat to us, before we spent money on things like social security, welfare, or public schools. Who among us hasn't felt the tug from that siren call of simplicity? Who hasn't recognized problems in the federal government? Paul is clearly no friend of big government. In fact, Paul has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" as a result of his consistent "No" votes in Congress. He votes "No" on everything, except when he votes "Yes." Come to think of it, why did he vote for $70 million on Section 8 housing vouchers? Or on federal funding for health providers who don't perform abortions? Or on an expensive fence separating the U.S. from Mexico? Agree or disagree with each of those positions, each involves a vote for increasing federal spending, something I keep hearing he's never done. Oops!


Ron Paul is simple-minded, supplying sound bites to complex problems. He's not a credible candidate, and shouldn't be. No amount of attempting to redefine "credible" will change that.

Let's step back a moment and realize that we're talking about a man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself, and dissolve department after department of the government single-handedly. Health and Human Services? Gone! Education? Gone! Energy? Homeland Security? Gone! Feel a little thrill? Excited that someone is finally talking about reducing government, and getting the fed out of our lives? Not worried about where all those ex-federal employees are going to work? Not worried about a little number-fuzziness when it comes to a few hundred billion dollars here or there? Ron Paul just might be your man! Apparently all it will take are a few strokes of his pen, and then he'll apparently spend the remaining three years and 51 weeks of his first term in office vetoing attempts by those silly congress-people to spend money that isn't there to spend, since Paul will have eliminated the federal income tax. Not bad for a man currently in last place in the race to see who will concede the 2008 election to the Democrats!


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/15/092742.php

we're talking about a man who seems to believe that the U.S. President has the power to set the federal budget all by himself, and dissolve department after department of the government single-handedly.

That right there discredits this person completely. Ron Paul, a constitutionalist, thinking the President has the power to set the budget and dissolve departments by himself? Please.

He would like to see a number of those departments removed, but he can't do that without public support to influence congress. His becoming president, should that happen, will be a sign of that support. If the influence soon follows, and he convinces the public and the congress that those departments should be done away with, then he'll get his way. But that's the only way he'll get his way. Paul has stated this quite clearly during interviews. And anyone who takes Paul seriously and isn't interested in a quick piece of slander against him knows this.

Actually, what the author is trying to say is that no Congress in its right mind would dissolve the departments. i.e. he is exposing the Ron Paul rhetoric for what it is.

If Paul is elected president, public support will possibly be strong enough for congress to be swayed into voting away or diminishing such departments. For example, there are many people who feel that education should be handled completely at the state level.

If Paul is elected president, public support will possibly be strong enough for congress to be swayed into voting away or diminishing such departments. For example, there are many people who feel that education should be handled completely at the state level.

I doubt you'll find many scientists to support that, for one. And I seriously doubt anyone in the US would support doing away with Homeland Security or Income Tax entirely. Like the presently elected Congress, there will always be reasons for not doing what the people want.

I haven't been paying too much attention to Ron Paul to be honest, but anyone who ignores socio-political realities for a 200 year old idea of running the state should move to Saudi Arabia, IMO.

Of course, but it's not as if people are asking for these things on a whim. Paul has reasons for wanting to downsize or removing certain departments. If those reasons are intelligent and Paul is persuasive enough to convince Congress of their merit, then they'll go though. Contrary to popular opinion, he's not some nut that'll cut departments just for the sake of cutting them.

How much was the public outcry at the Watson gaffe?

Watson's remarks cost him his job (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/watson-resigns-.html), and sparked a discussion about his legacy. I'm sorry people haven't been hard enough on him to satisfy you, but I don't think a dottering old man in the twilight of a brilliant and oft-controversial career is a fair comparison to a politician who primary appeal is to selfishness.

• • •

In General

One of the problems with the idea of returning certain power to the states is the Fourteenth Amendment, which drives States' Rights activists nuts. The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was applied in Loving v. Virginia, which used that portion of the Constitution to strike down anti-miscegenation laws at all levels. Once the state-level decision to strike anti-miscegenation on Constitutional grounds was affirmed, that outcome was extended to the nation because all people are entitled to equal protection under the law. Coming from Virginia should not mean you have fewer civil rights than someone from California.

This could become an issue in extracting the federal government from education. Consider what a lack of federal standards could mean. Let's consider students applying to to a prestigious public school like U-Mich or Berkley. What constitutes equal protection? States like California, New York, and Washington will have different—e.g., higher—standards than, say, Texas or Kansas. Should a bright student from Topeka be refused entry to a good school because his state set lower educational standards? It's not the student's fault that his family lives in Kansas. It's not the student's fault that people who came before him set lower standards.

Should, then, California or Michigan, for instance, be required to lower their standards to admit students from Kansas? Should a renowned research school like the University of Washington alter its standards to accommodate young "scientists" who adhere to young-earth creationism? Should good social studies programs (e.g. Univ. of New Mexico, Univ. of Wisconsin) alter their criteria in order to accommodate Lone Star (Texas) social studies?

Or should nobody have to adjust anything? This presents a long-term challenge that would see students from states with lower academic standards unable to compete at more prestigious universities.

In the 1990s, a citizens' group in Oregon put an anti-gay measure on the ballot that, if enacted, would have dictated such sweeping policy in the public education system that the medical schools would have been obliged to teach religion instead of science. Would you hire a doctor certified by a standard specifically designed to promote religious supremacy and superstition?

Comparatively, even if the kid from Texas ends up going to college in Texas, how long before those degrees are viewed as inferior? It's not exactly fair that people should work their asses off for a degree that is not only useless in the marketplace, but also in the knowledge it signifies.

Paul's poor standing cannot be blamed on partisan shennanigans alone. Most Americans, it seems, would rather not reach back centuries. The frontier mentality has some romantic appeal, but most folks seem to prefer modernity.

But you're talking as if this doesn't happen already. Different high schools in different parts of the city have different standards. So if you end up going to an inferior high school, your chances of going to a good college are lower than someone who went to a more prestigious one. What's the difference? At least with the DoE out of the way, the states could focus their energy and funds on their own schools and demographics which they undoubtedly know better than someone at the federal level.

But you're talking as if this doesn't happen already.

Different process. At least as things are, a little good faith is really all that's necessary. Okay, a big freakin' truckload of good faith.

And that's hard enough to get. Condemning the future for the satisfaction of the present is a difficult platform to sell. There are plenty of ways to condemn the future without being so forward about it, or proud of it. This will be a hurdle for Paul to overcome.

Condemning the future?

...you do realize that the removal of the DoE is supposed to be an improvement right? Or is it just a thick layer of sarcasm I'm unable to see through?

I opposed him before; with good reason. The man is a nut - at one time he says that corporations have too much of a hold on the political process and on government, but at the same time he advocates dissolving every regulatory body that exists.

He's right that it's a shame that the FDA is so deeply in the pharmaceutical industry's pocket, but somehow I think there's a better solution than dissolving the FDA - If the problem is that the agency isn't doing it's job, then simply getting rid of it sure as hell isn't going to make things better, it just opens the door for Corporations to provide (or not) their own oversight.

Aside from that he uses the constitution as if it's a buzz word which somehow supports all of his policies, when in fact this could not be farther from the truth. Remember, right in the preamble it states that part of the government's job is to promote the general welfare. His wank-off libritarian fantasies run contrary to the idea of a society where people help one another, and the government at least makes some attempt to safeguard it's citizens quality of life.

That being said he's the only republican on the right side of any of the major issues, so I guess I can see how some uninformed people would fall for him.

Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer. But let's take this a little bit further. S*F is a pro-white group. They gave him donations. What if the NAACP (pro-black group) gave him some too? Would there be an equal uproar? Oh, hell no. If LaRaza (pro-Hispanic) gave him money, would there be outrage? Oh, hell no. Why are whites apologizing for being/supporting whites? :confused:

Uuum slight difference between ********** and the NAACP - the NAACP doesn't make the case that blacks are perfect and should rightly drive all other races out of the country, or commit acts of violence against whites. Nor do they idolize long dead genocidal dictators.

Not really on equal footing there. I won't say anything about LaRaza though because I don't know a ton about them, but I have heard some unflattering rumors.

So... what, guilt by indirect association? Like sandy said, what if the NAACP or some GLBT group supported him? Does that mean their interests become his interests? No. Just because I would vote for Ron Paul doesn't mean we entirely agree. Besides, the voters choose him, he doesn't choose his voters.

The people who support him does say something about his appeal and the message he puts out. I think it's an entirely valid point to bring up.

And in addition to my request for your source concerning Paul's supporters, do Republican voters not care about about gun rights? Lower taxes? Smaller government? Decreasing our national debt?

To Ron Paul's credit, at least he actually stands for the things that Republicans and talk-radio listeners still shout stupidly whenever they come across (oh no) a liberal. I guess it's harder to get all self righteous about Autocracy, Jingoism and NASCAR for all.

I've also heard many people complaining that Ron Paul's embracing of some of the extremist conservative values may split the Republican vote, which can only help the Democrats. Thoughts?

Only if, after failing to gain the RNC's endorsement as their official candidate, he decides to run as an independent (or with the backing of some other party).

Hmm I'm disappointed tiassa. Racism? Ho hum. How much was the public outcry at the Watson gaffe? It sure did not affect his book signing any, or his reception by his peers, public appearances of outraged propriety notwithstanding.


Actually yes, it did effect him rather greatly, several signing destinations were canceled and he was fired from his administration position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He is currently regarded within the scientific community as a man of some accomplishment who's gone senile in his old age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Opinion_claiming_links_between_rac e_and_intelligence

Condemning the future?

...you do realize that the removal of the DoE is supposed to be an improvement right? Or is it just a thick layer of sarcasm I'm unable to see through?

Destroying the department of education is only an improvement insofar as allowing schools to teach intelligent design and "flat earth theory" is a good idea - or insofar as divesting in the public education system is a good idea, or insofar as the state trying to make it easier for home schooling to be the accepted standard (a policy which is right up there on Ron Paul's own website) is a good idea.

In other words it's just a bad idea.

Condemning the future?

...you do realize that the removal of the DoE is supposed to be an improvement right?

Oh, yeah. I'm aware of what I'm supposed to believe about it. I also know that throwing out federal standards is fine if we wish the United States to go from one society to fifty. Once upon a time, we were "these" United States. But we have built most of our progress as "the" United States. Like it or not, we're in this together.

Fixing the standards so they work is one thing. Throwing out any and all standards, in this case, is a really bad idea. It might sound appealing to some right now, but it's more likely than not to be disastrous in the future.

I've heard Ron Paul speak and have even met him--back in the days when he could afford to identify himself as a Libertarian. He is no racist.

The Libertarian Party attracts all the fringe groups because we oppose the government's ever-increasing control over our lives. That brings in the religious wackos, the gun nuts and the racists, and they've always been our cross to bear. Since we're opposed to Affirmative Discrimination the racists love us--but so do the more thoughtful leaders of the minority communities because they understand that being treated like beloved but incompetent little pets does not work to their benefit in the long run. We're also opposed to the nationalization of the charity industry and its subsidization out of tax money and the racists love us for that--and again so do the more thoughtful leaders of the minority communities because the bureaucratic welfare rules have created an entire multi-generational class of people who don't even know how to operate an alarm clock and who don't keep adult males in their homes because it disqualifies them from welfare.

The Libertarian Party operates on a shoestring budget--as the largest "third party" in America it still only has about 200,000 registered voters. So its press releases and other publications are more than a little lacking in editorial judgment. The small-l libertarian movement is no better off: other than its flagship Reason magazine, its reading material is full of poorly-researched articles, inflammatory opinions, and ads desperately begging for college kids to to editorial work.

Ron Paul had to re-register as a Republican many years ago in order to keep his seat as a Congressman from Texas during the Bush Dynasty.

I will vote for him. Not because he has any chance of winning. But because strong showings by third party candidates scare the Republocrats into getting more in touch with their constituents. The American Communist Party never won a major office. But they won enough local elections at the local level for the Republocrats to take notice of a new sense of community and entitlement that was sweeping the nation. Within 25 years, the entire 1929 Communist Party platform had been adopted by both branches of the Republocrat Party. Entire economic sectors had been effectively nationalized: charity, energy, transportation. It was Eisenhower--a Republican--who completed the job of nationalizing the medical and education sectors, by establishing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

It is the Libertarian Party who is responsible for the power shift in the Senate. The Republican incumbent in Montana lost the 2006 election because the Libertarian candidate made a strong showing. Montana has fewer than a million people so something like this can happen there. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, is widely credited for throwing the 2000 presidential election to Bush. The Green Party tends to attract Democrats who are disgusted with their party's caving in to corporate lobbyists. The Libertarian Party, in rural areas like Montana, tends to attract disillusioned Republicans who are disgusted with high taxes and preemptive wars; in urban areas it's a little more likely to attract disillusioned Democrats who are disgusted with the disastrous second-order effects of Affirmative Discrimination and the War on Drugs.

I opposed him before; with good reason. The man is a nut - at one time he says that corporations have too much of a hold on the political process and on government, but at the same time he advocates dissolving every regulatory body that exists.

He's right that it's a shame that the FDA is so deeply in the pharmaceutical industry's pocket, but somehow I think there's a better solution than dissolving the FDA - If the problem is that the agency isn't doing it's job, then simply getting rid of it sure as hell isn't going to make things better, it just opens the door for Corporations to provide (or not) their own oversight.

Aside from that he uses the constitution as if it's a buzz word which somehow supports all of his policies, when in fact this could not be farther from the truth. Remember, right in the preamble it states that part of the government's job is to promote the general welfare. His wank-off libritarian fantasies run contrary to the idea of a society where people help one another, and the government at least makes some attempt to safeguard it's citizens quality of life.

That being said he's the only republican on the right side of any of the major issues, so I guess I can see how some uninformed people would fall for him.

Taken from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=284721&postcount=19 from a fellow RP supporter who expresses the reasons why Paul disapproves of the FDA far better than I could:

With respect to showing people why having the FDA is more harmful than good, I typically use the following examples:

(1) It is likely that more than a million people have died merely by the delay resulting from the FDA's approval process. The Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs calculated the number of deaths that occurred multiplied by the success rate of the drugs that eventually were approved to treat them for just 12 different drugs, and the most conservative estimate of the number of deaths resulting from the approval delay was 520,000. More reasonable estimates that include some drugs that are even today not approved (such as Provenge for prostate cancer) make the one million number a safe bet. More info:

http://www.abigail-alliance.org/

(2) At least 10 times as many children have been born with birth defects as a result of the FDA's delay in allowing the advertising of folic acid's benefits for pregnant women than the total number of birth defects resulting from drugs that caused them (such as Thalidomide). More info:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2004/01/06/fda_muffed_chance_to_prevent_birth_defects/

(3) We will never know the number of drugs that haven't been developed because of the enormous cost associated with the FDA's regulations, and big pharmaceutical companies actually benefit from these regulations, as they force many small developers to sell great ideas to them since only the biggest companies can afford the cost of compliance.

As for what will replace the FDA:

(1) Reputation - A reputation for safe and effective drugs is worth billions of dollars to a pharmaceutical company. They have an overwhelming incentive to guarantee the safety of their medications: the loss of that reputation could well result in the total failure of the business. Unlike government agencies, businesses are always in danger of bankruptcy (note that FDA failures cost the FDA and its staff nothing, or even result in budget increases for the department).

(2) Independent testing - Prior to the FDA, both the American Medical Association and Consumers' Research (publishers of Consumer Reports) did independent testing, and leading magazines published results and warnings. There would be a strong demand for such certification in the absence of the false safety provided by the FDA approval process. Note that electrical appliance safety is not a government function, even though electrocution and other hazards have always been major risks. Why not? Because Underwriter Labs, a private service, was developed and charges product manufacturers for the essential "UL" Listing on electrical appliances. No reputable store will sell products that aren't UL approved, even though no government agency is involved. Also note that Kosher certification is a private function, and many people use it now, both for religious reasons and because of the prohibitions on animal cruelty involved in the Kosher designation. In the age of the Internet, independent information about medical product safety will quickly become standard with the abolition of the FDA, and FDA regulations are today prohibiting such alternative information in many cases due to draconian advertising rules.

(3) Liability - Eliminating the FDA doesn't mean the elimination of legal liability for drug manufacturers and distributors: it only means removal of the enormous regulatory delays, prior restraint, and advertising prohibitions. Companies will still be liable for damages resulting from harmful products.

More info:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap6.html

This is Dr. Mary Ruwart's chapter entitled Protecting Ourselves to Death from her terrific book on libertarianism: Healing Our World. I strongly suggest the current version for people who want solid arguments on all of the major issues that come up when defending libertarianism (note, however, that Dr. Ruwart is a more consistent libertarian than Dr. Paul, so her views will differ from his on a few matters, although they will only make it even easier to defend Paul's more limited version of libertarian ideas).

An entire copy of Dr. Ruwart's 1993 version of the book is actually online for free at:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/

I would suggest, though, that someone who is looking for an up-to-date book with tons of quotes and references on every major issue will find it useful to purchase the current version of the book. Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661/ref=sr_1_1/103-5319186-5364624?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192703010&sr=1-1

Once again, Dr. Ruwart is a total libertarian, and Dr. Paul's views will differ on a few of the issues, but he really doesn't have a current book of his own that covers all of the issues in this kind of detail, and those wanting to be solid spokesperson's for Ron Paul will find that the arguments available are really helpful.

I should note that Dr. Paul himself has offered effusive praise for Dr. Ruwart's book, and his praise is on the back cover of the current version of the book.

Additionally, as long as I'm mentioning books, Harry Browne, (who ran twice for as the LP presidential candidate after Ron Paul did) wrote a book with lots of one-liner responses on libertarian issues, and it is available through Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Z-Libertarian-Soundbites-Right/dp/0975432605/ref=sr_1_1/103-5319186-5364624?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192703261&sr=1-1

Paul supporters should go to his official site for his positions to note a few different views from Browne, but will find a treasure trove of one-liners in Browne's book that will be useful in defending Paul's views on almost every key issue related to a presidential race. The book has 16 great 30-second soundbites JUST on the FDA.

Once again, Dr. Paul has personally praised this book, and actually wrote the foreword to it.

I hope my answer is helpful, and not too much overkill. Take what's useful and ignore the rest.

Destroying the department of education is only an improvement insofar as allowing schools to teach intelligent design and "flat earth theory" is a good idea - or insofar as divesting in the public education system is a good idea, or insofar as the state trying to make it easier for home schooling to be the accepted standard (a policy which is right up there on Ron Paul's own website) is a good idea.

In other words it's just a bad idea.

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,, it was the courts that forbade intelligent design from being taught in public schools, not the DoE. And Paul isn't pushing for home schooling to be a standard, he's pushing for alternatives to be available for parents who're dissatisfied with public schooling by providing those who seek non-public schooling with tax credits. This includes home schooling, private schools and religious schools.

In other words, give me something more here.

(1) It is likely that more than a million people have died merely by the delay resulting from the FDA's approval process. The Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs calculated the number of deaths that occurred multiplied by the success rate of the drugs that eventually were approved to treat them for just 12 different drugs, and the most conservative estimate of the number of deaths resulting from the approval delay was 520,000. More reasonable estimates that include some drugs that are even today not approved (such as Provenge for prostate cancer) make the one million number a safe bet.

That pretty much ignores the damage done by the massive number of ineffective or dangerous drugs that would be used as well. Call me back when your study actually takes that into effect.

(2) At least 10 times as many children have been born with birth defects as a result of the FDA's delay in allowing the advertising of folic acid's benefits for pregnant women than the total number of birth defects resulting from drugs that caused them (such as Thalidomide).

Sorry but the FDA in no way banned Folic Acid. People could still use it and could still hear the opinions of people saying they should use it. So banning the FDA would have somehow have made the then non-existant agency advertise the benefits of Folic Acid?

(3) We will never know the number of drugs that haven't been developed because of the enormous cost associated with the FDA's regulations, and big pharmaceutical companies actually benefit from these regulations, as they force many small developers to sell great ideas to them since only the biggest companies can afford the cost of compliance.

Maybe you should just look at the number of effective drugs developed in countries that did not have as strict an oversight. Any major ones come to mind?

I appreciate some of Paul's positions but eliminating the FDA is not one of them.

I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on the FDA as I am on other departments that Paul wants to cut, which is why I let someone else's comments try and explain Paul's disapproval of it. As I personally don't have a stance on it, I've invited the original author of the post to come by and try to reply to your rebuttal. :)

He didn't reject them at the time, and thus profited politically. That's my big objection. Once one has reaped the benefits, it's disingenuous to distance oneself from such an issue by saying, "But I didn't write it". He's already received and spent the political capital; quite obviously, such remarks won him some dubious support. Regardless of his current defense, such dubious endorsements present his campaign with a challenge.

I disagree.

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.,, it was the courts that forbade intelligent design from being taught in public schools, not the DoE.

I think that's actually beside the point. Maybe if you'd paid attention to my discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment and education instead of looking for the quickest, most convenient route available, you would realize that what Mystech is describing is a potential result of leaving educational standards purely at the state level.

Additionally, I dislike Paul's proposition that since agencies are corrupted or inefficient, we should just give over to the presumption of Original Sin (people are evil and corrupt) and throw out the whole operation. It seems more worthwhile, to me, to start demanding some integrity of ourselves and our neighbors. Would you, or Dr. Paul, argue that since there are some corrupt police officers, we should get rid of law enforcement?

At ashura's request, I am offering some responses to the challenges to an FDA post I made on another forum that ashura copied to this forum without my knowledge. Unfortunately, I do not have time to remain in this discussion, so this will have to be my only response here. My original is posted under ashura's name along with many links, and I've quoted only the challenges to make this more readable. I am not permitted to include links in my message by rules of the forum, as I am a new poster on this forum, but have mentioned a couple here with changes so they won't work as links directly (change xxx to www, of course).

>That pretty much ignores the damage done by the massive number of ineffective or dangerous drugs that would be used as well. Call me back when your study actually takes that into effect.

It is typical in a discussion for the party MAKING a claim to provide evidence to support it, rather than demanding that someone else do it. Where are the studies to support the claim that there would be a "massive number" of ineffective or dangerous drugs? Further, this wasn't my study, but peer reviewed work by researchers in the field. There are no studies I can cite that support the view that the FDA has stopped large numbers of dangerous drugs from reaching the market, and those who hold this view ought to have the burden of proving it in the light of the clear evidence of deaths from regulatory delays.

I doubt such studies will be forthcoming. Since the number of deaths from adverse reactions to medications has not fallen since the creation of the FDA, nor since the 1962 Kefauver amendment massively increased its power, nor is it lower in the US than in other industrialized countries with less restrictive regulation, it is reasonable to conclude that any hypothetical reduction in the number of deaths from adverse reactions to drugs is relatively small. In fact, thalidomide remains the only documented case involving a drug available in other countries but blocked by the FDA that resulted in severe harm or death to more than a few hundred people, as far as I know. If we take the thalidomide horror and double it, and assume all the harm caused was equivalent to death, then a generous assumption might be that the FDA regulations could have resulted in protection from premature death of 30,000 people in total. This would certainly be considered significant if it could be demonstrated, although it hasn't been, and I'm just being generous for the sake of making a point.

The point? Measured against the rather straightforward and uncontroversial evidence in the studies I cited that FDA delays of lifesaving drugs have resulted in the premature death of at least 1,000,000 Americans, the possibility that these same regulations might have also prevented 30,000 premature deaths is cold comfort. If preventing 30,000 deaths is a good enough reason to have an FDA, causing 1,000,000 deaths is more than enough reason to consider its existence a monstrous outrage. At the very least, it deserves more than a condescending dismissal of the evidence provided.

> Sorry but the FDA in no way banned Folic Acid. People could still use it and could still hear the opinions of people saying they should use it. So banning the FDA would have somehow have made the then non-existant agency advertise the benefits of Folic Acid?

Well, since I never said the FDA banned Folic Acid, I'm not sure how that part of this response is relevant. What I said is that the FDA prohibited the advertising of the benefits of Folic Acid in reducing birth defects, and that is absolutely true. The fact that people who don't sell Folic Acid are permitted to express their opinion doesn't change that: when the manufacturer of a product is forbidden from advertising its benefits, that will reduce the use of the product. Advertising a product increases its sales. This is such an obvious point that I can't believe it is being disputed.

Another MAJOR example was the long delay in FDA approval of advertising of the heart disease reduction benefits of an aspirin regimine. In addition to the links I provided in my original message, here is another link on the topic of off-label prescribing, and the manner in which the FDA has interfered with the advertising of benefits.

Assessing the FDA via the Anomaly of Off-Label Drug Prescribing by Alexander Tabarrok:

xxx.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=240&issueID=21

I should also note, even though it wasn't in my original comments, that the FDA HAS actually banned the import of some products because they contain folic acid. But my point was about the advertising prohibition. The research suggests that more children were born with spina bifida because of this advertising probibition than were born with birth defects resulting from thalidomide, and if the latter is worthy of attention, so is the former.

> Maybe you should just look at the number of effective drugs developed in countries that did not have as strict an oversight. Any major ones come to mind?

If a drug cannot be sold in the most profitable market in the world, its likelihood of being developed will decrease regardless of the country in which the scientists are located. So this challenge is a non sequitur.

Even so, most Asian countries permit several herbal and similar remedies that are not approved in the US, and given the significantly greater longevity in these countries, it is clear that their less restrictive standards have not been, on net, negative, and may be positive. We also know that longevity in the US is, surprisingly, not longer than most other industrialized nations with less restrictive drug laws. As noted earlier, Americans do not benefit from fewer adverse drug reaction deaths than other countries (obviously, Vioxx happened even WITH FDA approval, and adverse reactions will always exist: there is little evidence that prior restraint and long delays in approval have had a meaningful impact one way or the other).

Again, though, we will never know what lifesaving drugs the world would have today if the most profitable market in the world were not so expensive to enter. I have no way of knowing if my wife's multiple sclerosis might have been cured already in the absence of these extraordinary costs and draconian regulatory burdens. Yes, it is speculation, but quite reasonable in the light of the facts.

> I appreciate some of Paul's positions but eliminating the FDA is not one of them.

I'm glad you find some of his positions worthy, and you have the right to your opinion on the FDA: I would say that Dr. Paul's viewpoint on this topic is evidence of his clarity of thought, professional experience in the field, and reliance on scientific evidence, and next to his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy has the potential to save more lives than any other proposal he has made. A million premature deaths is an extraordinary price to pay for an agency whose only major success, thalidomide, is dwarfed by the measurable lives destroyed by its delays.

If the citations I made in my first posting are too long to read, here is a much shorter one by Dr. Ruwart (who, like Dr. Paul, has professional credentials in this area along with citations of evidence to support her conclusions).

Death by Regulation: The Price we Pay for the FDA by Dr. Mary Ruwart

xxx.isil.org/resources/lit/death-regulation.html

I hope that people will be open-minded enough to read this piece, and remember that pharmaceutical companies already have an enormous incentive not to kill their customers, as I cited in my original post. I won't repeat those arguments or citations, as those who failed to read them are no more likely to do so by being harangued.

I joined the forum to post this response and defend my original comments that were copied over here. I don't have time to pursue this discussion, and hope I have provided enough so that interested readers will see the strength of the position. At least, I hope they will recognize that Dr. Paul's proposal is worthy of active debate, and that those who disagree ought to offer some evidence of their own.

It is typical in a discussion for the party MAKING a claim to provide evidence to support it, rather than demanding that someone else do it. Where are the studies to support the claim that there would be a "massive number" of ineffective or dangerous drugs? Further, this wasn't my study, but peer reviewed work by researchers in the field. There are no studies I can cite that support the view that the FDA has stopped large numbers of dangerous drugs from reaching the market, and those who hold this view ought to have the burden of proving it in the light of the clear evidence of deaths from regulatory delays.

Since you won't be reading it I'll keep my responses short. You are the one proposing the elimination of the FDA so I would say the burden of providing research worthy of consideration to support that claim is on you. Research that only considers the benefits of eliminating the agency while ignoring the deterimental effects does not meet my standard of worthwhile data. If you want to discuss changes to improve the agency, I'd be happy to listen--there are certainly plenty of problems including the slow approval of needed drugs--but that's not your position. You want the agency eliminated.

If you want to see what potential problems that could result from its elimination simply look at the quality of medicines and the falsity of claims concerning them that occurred before the agency was created. You apparently would like drug manufactorers to be able to make whatever claims they want about their products without oversight. And I think the longevity of people in "Asian countries" (like China?) is not due to the fact that they can purchase rhino horn as a medication.

Double standard.

If the Black Panthers supported Ron Paul would there be equal uproar? I don't think anyone equates a group like the Black Panthers with the NAACP or Rainbow Coalition. Ergo, it is safe to say the Black panthers are an extremist group and can be safely separated from those groups "just struggling for equal rights.

So, what's the difference in a black or Mestizo extremist group supporting a candidate in contrast to a "white rights" group that supports a candidate?

Double standard.

If the Black Panthers supported Ron Paul would there be equal uproar? I don't think anyone equates a group like the Black Panthers with the NAACP or Rainbow Coalition. Ergo, it is safe to say the Black panthers are an extremist group and can be safely separated from those groups "just struggling for equal rights.

So, what's the difference in a black or Mestizo extremist group supporting a candidate in contrast to a "white rights" group that supports a candidate?

Interesting point.

I don't think anyone equates a group like the Black Panthers with the NAACP or Rainbow Coalition. Ergo, it is safe to say the Black panthers are an extremist group and can be safely separated from those groups "just struggling for equal rights.

I've been looking through the Black Panther website (http://www.blackpanther.org/), and I'm not finding the call to black supremacy. Help us out on that point?

So, what's the difference in a black or Mestizo extremist group supporting a candidate in contrast to a "white rights" group that supports a candidate?

In the first place, while certain groups like La Raza seem to have radical agendas, I'm not familiar with their blanket assertion of ethnic supremacy. Help us out with that, please?

To the other, there is, in fact, a difference between advocating for a disempowered minority and declaring the ethnic, moral, and legal supremacy of the economically and politically empowered majority.

Tiassa, hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Sorry for the late reply. I've been a little busy but I'd like to continue this conversation if you do too.

I think that's actually beside the point.

I don't think it's beside the point at all. He mentioned a specific issue which I addressed by pointing out that the DoE had no role in it. The inclusion of flat earth theory or creationism in public schools, something which I'm firmly against, won't be stopped by the federal DoE but at the local level.

Maybe if you'd paid attention to my discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment and education instead of looking for the quickest, most convenient route available, you would realize that what Mystech is describing is a potential result of leaving educational standards purely at the state level.

Even after paying attention to your post, I'm still left with the same response I had earlier. The fears you have about the issue already exist in reality. The DoE is by and large irrelevant to that discussion.

From the DoE wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education): "Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States) is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act)). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_accreditation), over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

Rather, the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."

The idea behind getting rid of the DoE is to remove this involvement in school funding by the federal government. Give back the money being used to fund it and the money it redistributes to the states and let them handle education as they think is necessary.

If my understanding of the DoE and reasoning are wrong, I'll be happy to fix them provided some nice post-Turkey reading from you. :)

Additionally, I dislike Paul's proposition that since agencies are corrupted or inefficient, we should just give over to the presumption of Original Sin (people are evil and corrupt) and throw out the whole operation.

It's not just a matter of agencies being corrupt or inefficient, although they certainly don't help matters. It's also about the government taking a role that the Constitution doesn't give the authority for.

Double standard.

If the Black Panthers supported Ron Paul would there be equal uproar? I don't think anyone equates a group like the Black Panthers with the NAACP or Rainbow Coalition. Ergo, it is safe to say the Black panthers are an extremist group and can be safely separated from those groups "just struggling for equal rights.

So, what's the difference in a black or Mestizo extremist group supporting a candidate in contrast to a "white rights" group that supports a candidate?

As Tiassa points out, ********** is in a unique category when compared to groups like the NAACP or Rainbow coalition or the Black Panthers. They're white supremacists to the core. That's not something that can or should be denied.

What should be done, in my opinion, is pointing out WHY they support Paul, because it isn't for a racial reason. As I mentioned in another post, some posters at ********** are actually against Paul because of his staunch anti-racism.

The question now is should Paul reject their support? Should he return the money? Clinton after all did return campaign contributions she received from a felon. Honestly, I don't have an answer. The money represents a support of the things Paul is running on but it comes from a source that's pretty disgusting. But is the fact that they're willing to vote for Paul in spite of, rather than because of, what they believe a factor that should be considered as well?

Like I said, I don't really have an answer. :shrug:

What if the NAACP (pro-black group) gave him some too? Would there be an equal uproar? Oh, hell no. If LaRaza (pro-Hispanic) gave him money, would there be outrage? Oh, hell no. Why are whites apologizing for being/supporting whites? : confused :I think you are confused, NAACP wants equality for Blacks, La Raza Party wants more equality for Mexicans, they never mention less equality for whites is their agenda, whilst S*F & most white supremacy groups are against non-whites, read their lit, hear their music

& if whites are so- supreme, why do they need to be against non-whites, they should go about their business, leave others alone, let their so-called superiority rise to the surface

just 1 question though, do most white supremacists feel inferior for having failed in a rigged system? just asking, cause all that hate has to come from somewhere or something, no?

Author Steven Brust raised an interesting point yesterday:

Ron Paul's response to the racist, homophobic, and generally disgusting filth that was published under his name was, "I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name" ....

.... Am I missing something, or does "I take moral responsibility" actually mean, "I deny moral responsibility?"

(Brust (http://skzbrust.livejournal.com/73114.html))

Paul supporters like to pretend he's some sort of refreshing change compared to what we're used to, but such statements, despite Andrew Sullivan's praise (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html), only reiterate that Paul is merely another politician, subject to the same slings and arrows we cast at just about any politician. For more than a decade, Paul may have taken responsibility for not paying attention to what he allowed his name to be put on, but before that, as we are already aware (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1630397&postcount=5), he chose to stand by the controversial remarks.

After his strong showing in Iowa and a fifth-place (8%) finish in New Hampshire, Paul and his supporters should expect that the issue is revisited, and as the Houston Chronicle's Julie Mason reminds, the Texas Congressman's response has been less than stellar:

But worse than just blowing millions on a campaign that's not really going anywhere, Paul is setting a troubling example for the hundreds of young supporters making their first foray into presidential politics with his campaign.

On Thursday, Paul was defending himself against the release of past newsletters published under his name in Texas, replete with racist, homophobic and paranoid language, which he has said were written without his approval.

The monthly newsletters date back to the late 1970s. They contain attacks on civil rights leaders, praise for white supremacist David Duke, and more. One 1992 issue noted after the Los Angeles riots of that year that, "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks ... they were paid off and the violence subsided."

Asked on CNN to explain himself, Paul said he was too busy to pay attention to what was being published in the Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul's Freedom Report. He said they don't reflect his views.

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist," Paul declared.

He accurately claimed that the newsletters were being brought up now "for political reasons." They certainly are — he is a national candidate for president, demanding to be taken seriously. It's reasonable to investigate his past statements and writings.

But Paul, as he has been doing lately, took it a step further, suggesting the newsletters were resurfacing as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to discredit him.

(Mason (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5445666.html))

In fact, it would seem that Mason isn't buying his line about moral responsibility, either:

By all other appearances, Paul is not a racist, and his explanation is plausible, but it's incomplete. To dismiss questions about the newsletters as part of some plot against Ron Paul — as the candidate increasingly refers to himself — is a disservice to the young true believers supporting him. So far, he has yet to take responsibility for allowing it to happen.

(ibid; accent added)

Political capital drawn from three decades that Paul chose to stand by, and then attempt to divorce himself from? The good doctor needs to realize that he's running for president, and claiming "moral responsibility" for allowing people to gather support for his cause with racist fear- and hatemongering does not mean ducking the issue by claiming it's some sort of unfair "conspiracy".

He's a nutbag. He has no chance in hell of becoming POTUS.

He's a nutbag. He has no chance in hell of becoming POTUS.

Yes, our Founding Fathers were such nutbags..

- N

Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer. But let's take this a little bit further. S*F is a pro-white group. They gave him donations. What if the NAACP (pro-black group) gave him some too? Would there be an equal uproar? Oh, hell no. If LaRaza (pro-Hispanic) gave him money, would there be outrage? Oh, hell no. Why are whites apologizing for being/supporting whites? :confused:

I believe that the ogranization that you mean to reference is MEChA.

The National Council of La Raza is kinda racist, but nothing compared to MEChA. LaRaza can also refer to the Mexica movement that is responsable for the ethnic cleansing in LA County in California where these mexicans have been seeking out all the blacks they can to murder.

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party. He should switch to (I) already and stop BSing.

the libertarian principles sound ancient Republicanish, but no person who actually belongs to today's party has anything in common with Paul.

look who supports him - extreme left who think the Democrats are a right wing party.

Ron Paul falls perfectly in line with the Republican platform. He supports the destruction of the Dept of Education and the reduction of the federal government, as well as the expansion of individual liberties.

At least those are the Republicans that I remember when I was younger.

Too bad he's so weird and unattractive. He has some interesting ideas.

Basically, he had chosen to inject himself in a local political dispute with a city council by labellings several blacks "house niggers" and "Uncle Tom's" for having the temerity to oppose the black mayor and vote with the "white people," the majority of whom were fellow Democrats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDTaxOCK2bE

You forgot happy negros.

sandy, why is it that you care what someone looks like? after all your voting for them to RULE you not sleep with you

its there policy that matter not there looks

sandy, why is it that you care what someone looks like? after all your voting for them to RULE you not sleep with you

its there policy that matter not there looks

That was funny.

sandy, why is it that you care what someone looks like? after all your voting for them to RULE you not sleep with you
its there policy that matter not there looks

Many Americans are very visually-oriented. I doubt we will elect an unattractive POTUS. Clinton may have won because of all the women who thought he was hot. :rolleyes:

Many Americans are very visually-oriented. I doubt we will elect an unattractive POTUS. Clinton may have won because of all the women who thought he was hot. :rolleyes:

What's your excuse for George W Bush?

He was more attractive when he was elected. He's exhausted.

He was more attractive when he was elected. He's exhausted.

Huh? Sandy, you totally oversimplify things.

To be certain, there is a segment that elects people because of superficial reasons (like, non-Anglo names you don't like, for example).

That said, however, most Americans who vote, at the very least, vote because of some ideology. "Labor vs. Big Business" "Unions vs. Management" "Liberalism vs. Conservatism" "Left vs. Right"

They may not think much more about the person or the ideas, but most people who vote, know that they either like the "guy who's pro life or the guy who's pro choice".

~String

Hopefully some of the voters go even further and actually look at a candiate's policy. After all thats what your REALLY voting for

You are a known racist yourself, but then again I bet that you supported the events that took place in Koreatown in the 1992 riots that you go so far out to defend.

Ron needs to get in NY ghetto Harlem and go talk to some dudes there.

I wish you'd stop making it seem like these are his words, or that he ever endorsed them. That he did not reject them at the time is true, and unfortunate, but that's the only point to be made.

Just remember that the same people who are mad that Ron Paul did not attack those who support him because of their views are the same ones that support Obama despite the fact that HE supports a racist church with his showing and most likely financial support.

But you're talking as if this doesn't happen already. Different high schools in different parts of the city have different standards. So if you end up going to an inferior high school, your chances of going to a good college are lower than someone who went to a more prestigious one. What's the difference? At least with the DoE out of the way, the states could focus their energy and funds on their own schools and demographics which they undoubtedly know better than someone at the federal level.

You are saying this as if the state shouldn't own everything and rule our entire lives from the moment that we are put into the cradle to the moment that we are put into the grave. Socialists hate the concepts of individual liberty and the 10th amedment, as these two concepts get in the way of the one world goverment that will eventually rule everything from a single building.

Uuum slight difference between ********** and the NAACP - the NAACP doesn't make the case that blacks are perfect and should rightly drive all other races out of the country, or commit acts of violence against whites. Nor do they idolize long dead genocidal dictators.

Not really on equal footing there. I won't say anything about LaRaza though because I don't know a ton about them, but I have heard some unflattering rumors.

You obviously don't know anything about the NAACP either.

Respectful blacks such as Bill Cosby know better than to fall for the lies of the NAACP, and instead encourage blacks to better theirselves, as opposed to simply bitching and moaning about whites 24/7, self-segregating, and encouraging more and more racism.

Destroying the department of education is only an improvement insofar as allowing schools to teach intelligent design and "flat earth theory" is a good idea - or insofar as divesting in the public education system is a good idea, or insofar as the state trying to make it easier for home schooling to be the accepted standard (a policy which is right up there on Ron Paul's own website) is a good idea.

In other words it's just a bad idea.

Exactly when was the 10th amendment repealed there commrade?

To Ron Paul's credit, at least he actually stands for the things that Republicans and talk-radio listeners still shout stupidly whenever they come across (oh no) a liberal. I guess it's harder to get all self righteous about Autocracy, Jingoism and NASCAR for all.

NASCAR, is this an attempt to show your racism like all good liberals have?

It was Eisenhower--a Republican--who completed the job of nationalizing the medical and education sectors, by establishing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.


Aside from Operation Wetback, I have never seen much of a reason to support Ike.

I think that's actually beside the point. Maybe if you'd paid attention to my discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment and education

Why do racists love the 14th amendment?

Could it be because it was illegaly put into effect because most of the signatures on it were put on there under duress?

The 14th amendment did not repeal the 10th amendment, to the dissapointment of racists and liberals alike.

I've been looking through the Black Panther website (http://www.blackpanther.org/), and I'm not finding the call to black supremacy. Help us out on that point?

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

Remember when the Panthers were demanding for their own black lands to be separate of the United States?

In the first place, while certain groups like La Raza seem to have radical agendas, I'm not familiar with their blanket assertion of ethnic supremacy. Help us out with that, please?

The phrase "por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" should be quite appealing to you.

To the other, there is, in fact, a difference between advocating for a disempowered minority and declaring the ethnic, moral, and legal supremacy of the economically and politically empowered majority.

Eh, showing your racist tendancies again. I bet that you would like to believe that that the only more believeable than the existance than a poor white person is the existance of unicorns.

I think you are confused, NAACP wants equality for Blacks, La Raza Party wants more equality for Mexicans, they never mention less equality for whites is their agenda, whilst S*F & most white supremacy groups are against non-whites, read their lit, hear their music

If the NAACP is so for equality, then why don't they publicaly denouce stuff such as this? (http://www.findablackdoctor.com)

If the NAACP is so for equality, then why don't they publicaly denouce stuff such as this? (http://www.findablackdoctor.com)

ohhh!!!!!!!! MY!!!!!!!!!!

you're so right, IT must be denounced

I'm so scandalized, you found the worst, so terrible, I can't believe how horrendous, I'm so shocked, absolutely shocked, I tell you!!!

thank you for bringing this grievous example to our attention

Just keep defending racism, it is the liberal thing to do.

i have to admit i always try to find aussie docs even though the indian ones are clinically just as good. My reason for doing so is because of accent, i find it hard enough to hear so i dont want to have to deal with an accent as well while im trying to get treatment

The phrase "por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" should be quite appealing to you..

it is quite appealing, who said that? George W Bush?

its from the "El Plan de Atzlan"
first page:
El Plan de Aztlan was adopted at the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver, Colorado, March 1969. The plan presented for the first time a clear statement of the growing nationalist consciousness of the Chicano people. It raised the concept of Aztlan, a Chicano nation, and the need for Chicano control of the Chicano community. Reffering to the Democratic and Republican parties as "the same animal with two heads that feed from the same trough," the plan pointed out that to achieve the goal of self-determination, would require an independent political party with Raza nationalism as its "common denominator.
...
With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán.

Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.

Do you do agree with what those words mean?

Just keep defending racism, it is the liberal thing to do.

& you are?
angrybellsprout
kkknazimuslimarabhater

translate this for us, since English words & ideas can have more than one meaning
kkknazimuslimarabhater

so, you hate kkk, nazis, muslims & arabs? or you hate kkknazi (acting) muslimarabs?

Do you do agree with what those words mean?

I do now, since it seems to tick so many people off

Like I said, keep defending racism like a good little liberal.

While you're at it, try to figure out what the phrase 'por la raza todo fuera de la raza nada' means.

Like I said, keep defending racism like a good little liberal.

While you're at it, try to figure out what the phrase 'por la raza todo fuera de la raza nada' means.
I already know 3 languages, don't need help there, do you?

So then you should know what the phrase means, but still racists will always defend it.

So then you should know what the phrase means, but still racists will always defend it.

& you're not a racist?

Please quote a racist statement of mine.

I have nearly 400 posts, so I'm sure that you should have an easy enough time.

Please quote a racist statement of mine.

I have nearly 400 posts, so I'm sure that you should have an easy enough time.

I'm asking you? what's the deal?

What is the deal with your support of a blatantly racist phrase?

So then you should know what the phrase means, but still racists will always defend it.

& why do you care what a small segment of a minority thinks? or used to think?

A small segment of a minority?

That is a joke, right?

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the Republican party. He should switch to (I) already and stop BSing.

He has plenty in common with Republicans. Yes, there are obvious differences. For one thing, he has a shread of conscience. But don't deny the similarities: He's against abortion, in favor of more control of our borders, and in favor of free-market forces having free reign on everything. He is at best skeptical of evolutionary science. He criticizes the "secularization" of American society. And he seems reluctant, as far as I'm aware, to admit that global warming is a real threat.

look who supports him - extreme left who think the Democrats are a right wing party.

BUH?!

Trust me, most of Paul's supporters aren't from the left. Go lurk on Digg.com. It's infested with Paul lovers. They all talk about teh ebil big gummint. That's right-wing talk.

Why do racists love the 14th amendment?

Enlighten us.

Could it be because it was illegaly put into effect because most of the signatures on it were put on there under duress?

Ooh, a conspiracy theory. Haven't heard this one yet.

The 14th amendment did not repeal the 10th amendment, to the dissapointment of racists and liberals alike.

Strangely, I hear more about whether or not the Tenth has been repealed by people who despise the Fourteenth. (Reality tends to be more subtle than your argument.)

Given that it still comes up in presidential campaigns, and existed at least long enough to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 1920s, I don't see where the proposition that it was repealed comes from. You're tilting windmills as far as I'm concerned.

To the other, why do you object to the notion that people deserve equal protection under the law?

Remember when the Panthers were demanding for their own black lands to be separate of the United States?

In the first place, don't just put up a link and expect someone you already disagree with to read the material and interpret things just like you do.

Secondly, there was a time when many found merit in the idea of separatism. After all, whites felt so damn violated by the prospect of having to be equal to their neighbors that many fought quite hard against it.

And no, it wasn't the best idea.

The phrase "por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada" should be quite appealing to you.

That's an accusation, not an answer. To the other, I still don't see the assertion of supremacy. Separatism, yes, but not supremacy.

You should probably take some time and understand the difference between the two.

Eh, showing your racist tendancies again. I bet that you would like to believe that that the only more believeable than the existance than a poor white person is the existance of unicorns.

You can do better than that. At least, I would hope.

Or are you prepared to argue that there is no difference between equality and supremacy?

Please quote a racist statement of mine.

How about "kkknazimuslimarabhater"?

Given that your arguments appear to equate both separatism and equality to supremacism, at least when it's blacks or Hispanics, you would appear to be treading in racist waters.

A small segment of a minority?yeah, most Mexicans/Chicanos I know, are very patriotic Americans, many with sons/relatives in the military
in my family of 5 kids, 3 joined the military, I did 6 years in the USAF, not the FAM, also, came within days of rejoining during the 1st Iraqi War, how about you? ex-GI or just chickenhawk?

That is a joke, right?the jokes on you dude, where you get the data? are you polling 2 Mexicans you don't like? or getting data from a scientific polls, like Gallup, Zogby, etc...?

here's a small sample of what you should be looking for in polls
20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results
1. Who did the poll?
2. Who paid for the poll and why was it done?
3. How many people were interviewed for the survey?
…
http://www.publicagenda.org/polling/polling_20q.cfm

Just keep defending racism, it is the liberal thing to do.
& what are you defending?

you just accuse, never answer, so what is a "KKKNAZIMUSLIMARABHATER"?

Ooh, a conspiracy theory. Haven't heard this one yet.

Now you are going to honestly try to tell us that the vast majority of the states that ratified the 14th amendment didn't do so under duress?

I bet next you are going to tell us that it wasn't part of the Radical Republican reconstruction plan to force a state to ratify the amendment as per part of the requirements to rejoin the Union of fascism? You are going to try to tell us that there was enough support for the load of crap currently known as the 14th Amendment in the Union to get it passed w/o having to place the Confederate states in a state of duress?

Strangely, I hear more about whether or not the Tenth has been repealed by people who despise the Fourteenth. (Reality tends to be more subtle than your argument.)

Considering the fact that the Constitution deals with the federal government, the 14th Amendment has no Constitutional hold on states and their personal laws. The 10th Amendment is fairly clear to what it states, thus attempting to circumvent the 10th Amendment on a fairly consistant basis is nothing but a disdain for the Constitution.

Given that it still comes up in presidential campaigns, and existed at least long enough to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 1920s, I don't see where the proposition that it was repealed comes from. You're tilting windmills as far as I'm concerned.

You are going to try and tell us that the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed by liberals in light of unconstitutional cases such as Roe v Wade?

To the other, why do you object to the notion that people deserve equal protection under the law?

Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when six individuals can beat another individual nearly to death and recieve no punishment simply on the basis of their race?

Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when individuals are hired or admitted into universities on the basis of their skin color as opposed to their credientals?

Equal protection under the law is something that racist liberals strongly oppose.

In the first place, don't just put up a link and expect someone you already disagree with to read the material and interpret things just like you do.

If you are even going to talk about the Black Panthers, then I would have guessed that you knew something about the 10 Point Plan.


Secondly, there was a time when many found merit in the idea of separatism. After all, whites felt so damn violated by the prospect of having to be equal to their neighbors that many fought quite hard against it.

I guess that you should tell that to the individuals who are in support of self-segregation. I guess that you should read the link to the book that I posted a while ago about the fact that blacks continue to support the idea of separatism, especially within the confines of the public square.

That's an accusation, not an answer. To the other, I still don't see the assertion of supremacy. Separatism, yes, but not supremacy.

Racism is racism, and you will go out of your way to defend it.

Or are you prepared to argue that there is no difference between equality and supremacy?

So you are an advocate of separate but equal?

How about "kkknazimuslimarabhater"?

Like I said, please start providing some quotes.

Given that your arguments appear to equate both separatism and equality to supremacism, at least when it's blacks or Hispanics, you would appear to be treading in racist waters.

Ah yes, you do quite enjoy your separate but equal.

I'm sure that you'd love organizations such as MEChA.

yeah, most Mexicans/Chicanos I know, are very patriotic Americans, many with sons/relatives in the military

Where were they for things such as this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y721T9nX0k

Where are they for MEChA meetings?

Where are they for things such as La Voz de Atzlan? While those directly involved with La Voz are a fairly small group, it has ripples all arcoss various racist groups in places such as Los Angles.

Why don't they speak up against stuff like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk

in my family of 5 kids, 3 joined the military, I did 6 years in the USAF, not the FAM, also, came within days of rejoining during the 1st Iraqi War, how about you? ex-GI or just chickenhawk?

Current GI, 5 down 15 to go.

the jokes on you dude, where you get the data? are you polling 2 Mexicans you don't like? or getting data from a scientific polls, like Gallup, Zogby, etc...?

here's a small sample of what you should be looking for in polls

I guess that MEChA doesn't exist?

I guess that racists that demand that I speak Spanish in the public education arena, while they refuse to learn languages such as Hangul, despite the fact that where we live there is a significant population of first and second generation Hangul speakers?

Would you support the phrase 'por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada' if la raza mentioned wasn't la raza bronze?

Now you are going to honestly try to tell us that the vast majority of the states that ratified the 14th amendment didn't do so under duress?

I bet next you are going to tell us that it wasn't part of the Radical Republican reconstruction plan to force a state to ratify the amendment as per part of the requirements to rejoin the Union of fascism? You are going to try to tell us that there was enough support for the load of crap currently known as the 14th Amendment in the Union to get it passed w/o having to place the Confederate states in a state of duress?



Considering the fact that the Constitution deals with the federal government, the 14th Amendment has no Constitutional hold on states and their personal laws. The 10th Amendment is fairly clear to what it states, thus attempting to circumvent the 10th Amendment on a fairly consistant basis is nothing but a disdain for the Constitution.



You are going to try and tell us that the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed by liberals in light of unconstitutional cases such as Roe v Wade?



Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when six individuals can beat another individual nearly to death and recieve no punishment simply on the basis of their race?

Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when individuals are hired or admitted into universities on the basis of their skin color as opposed to their credientals?

Equal protection under the law is something that racist liberals strongly oppose.



If you are even going to talk about the Black Panthers, then I would have guessed that you knew something about the 10 Point Plan.




I guess that you should tell that to the individuals who are in support of self-segregation. I guess that you should read the link to the book that I posted a while ago about the fact that blacks continue to support the idea of separatism, especially within the confines of the public square.



Racism is racism, and you will go out of your way to defend it.



So you are an advocate of separate but equal?



Like I said, please start providing some quotes.



Ah yes, you do quite enjoy your separate but equal.

I'm sure that you'd love organizations such as MEChA.


Question, I see 90% of my Republican friends complian about border security. But none of them are supporting Duncan Hunter for President. It seems like Republicans should stop voting in RINO's and actually back someone that's going to support your issues. Most Southern States have Republican Governers. The head of HLS is a Republican, why won't they listen to their base? And why don't you hold them accountable?

Fuck Ron Paul.

Fuck Ron Paul.

:eek:

Them's fightin' words!

- N

Question, I see 90% of my Republican friends complian about border security. But none of them are supporting Duncan Hunter for Presi