<p>Oh, and anyone can run an ad anywhere. Some stoners ran an ad in a magazine. That doesn’t make Ron Paul a stoner.</p>
<p>(HAHAHAHA now THAT is a funny image!!!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I swear the world is made of irony…</p>
<p>Yeah. Talk about a wasted vote.</p>
<p>Oh wait, I just remembered I’m still mad at you for costing Gore the election.</p>
<p>Ah. Movements. Political movements tend to make people feel that they’re part of something important, big, and unstoppable. Usually they’re wrong on all three counts and the movement winds up resembling the Children’s Crusade. I think Eugene McCarthy was the first one I was exposed to. “Movement” politics is like an addictive drug, one that makes its users feel that their passion will outweigh numbers.</p>
<p>Gosh, TheDad, you’re too old to be so cynical. ;)</p>
<p>Well, good thing the US Revolutionaries didn’t think that way, or the civil rights movement, or the followers of Gandhi…</p>
<p>
I live in California my vote didn’t cost you a thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ad by itself shouldn’t mean anything. But if you add up the ‘ghost’ writers in his newsletters that attacked African-Americans, his opposition to the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, and hate crime legislation and I begin to get a bit suspicious.</p>
<p>GottaLoveUCLA. I posted this in the other thread and you didn’t respond. Click the link at the bottom of that Stormfront page. Click it. Does it take you to Ron Paul’s website? No! What a surprise! It takes you to a posting within Stormfront, posted by a Stormfront USER, who has taken the ad image and other images from the Ron Paul campaign. Some members of that forum support him, some do not. There is a discussion taking place but it is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT PAID FOR BY RON PAUL. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION.</p>
<p>Ron Paul opposes the idea of the Civil War because he didn’t think it was necessary to end slavery. Everyone else ended slavery without a civil war, why not us? </p>
<p>He would like to see individual liberty guaranteed to everyone, thereby making the Civil Rights Act obselete. He opposes the CRA on Constitutional grounds. I definitely disagree with him on the CRA of 1964 but I do not see his motives as racism.</p>
<p>"This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. </p>
<p>The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.</p>
<p>Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act." - Rep. Ron Paul</p>
<p>He opposes hate crimes legislation on Constitutional grounds. States are free to have hate crimes laws but a homicide should not become a federal crime because of the motive. Plus deeming some ideas or motives especially “hateful” may violate the 1st Amendment. I don’t believe in federal hate crimes legislation and believe that states should fight violent crime with extra sentencing for premeditation, brutality, torture, or other enhancements that do not relate to motive.</p>
<p>“Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.” - Rep. Ron Paul</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only partly correct, my libertarian friend. If you look closely a the advertisement on [Stormfront</a> White Nationalist Community - Discussion Board for Activists](<a href=“http://www.stormfront.org/forum]Stormfront”>http://www.stormfront.org/forum). The advertisement has two parts. The first part of the advertisement is “RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT” in bold and underlined. That re-directs to another part of the nazi site. The second part is a big banner that says DONATE NOW RON PAUL REVOLUTION". If you click that link it goes straight to Ron Paul’s site. There’s your connection. Before I get to the other parts of your post please respond to that.</p>
<p>Anyone can post a link to some other site. That just means the nazi site posted a link to the RP site, not the other way around.</p>
<p>I’ve contacted the campaign to see if they’re paying for that ad space but I think it’s probable that the yahoos just linked to Ron Paul’s website. I could link to Ron Paul’s site using an image and some basic html off a MySpace page. I’ll let you know what the campaign says about it. I asked them if they would request that Stormfront remove the content as well.</p>
<p>I only clicked the black area of the image, that’s where I made my mistake. I apologize. We’ll see how the campaign responds. To be honest, I don’t want to have to go back to Stormfront to check to see if it’s still there.</p>
<p>No way would the campaign be paying for ad space in a nazi magazine! (or whatever it is) No way. Besides the obvious fact that Ron Paul is NOT a racist, that would be suicide to the campaign. sheesh. Presidential campaigns fry big fish - they run tv ads. That’s what they do with the millions they raise.</p>
<p>Small-time supporters run small ads like that, and the campaign has no control over it. As I said earlier, some stoners ran an ad in a stoner mag. That doesn’t make Ron a stoner!</p>
<p>In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in the competition deliberately did that, to mislead people. Ron Paul is so squeaky clean they’d have to invent something, since there really isn’t any dirt to dig up.</p>
<p>LD, for every movement that succeeds, dozens fail. I sometimes miss the successes but I haven’t missed spotting a failure yet, e.g., Ross Perot.</p>
<p>There is a broad swath of the public that wants “something different” from what the two major parties offer. Thing is, they won’t agree over any length of time as to the particulars of the “different” are. To quote Perot, the Devil is in the details. Ron Paul’s peculiar blend isn’t going to have broad appeal. If he breaks 5 percent in New Hampshire, he’ll be doing well. There’s a marker with a specific number…you game to put down yours?</p>
<p>Eh, Ron Paul’s movement is much bigger than Ross Perot’s (or Nader’s). And much more broad spectrum.</p>
<p>But, it’s pointless to debate this, really pointless. As I said, whether he wins or not, the movement is important. We shall see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>“Yes, elections in all other countries are about the big issues. LOL”</p>
<p>No, it’s about how more than 550,000 of the most educated, most liberal, most democratically-oriented Iraqis will remember how they were ethnically cleansed by General Betrayus. They will remember that the U.S. does not want them to return, and provides no assistance to them as their meager funds run out. They will remember that their daughters had to perform sexual acts in order for their families to survive. They will remember this even as virtually every non-Kurdish family in Iraq has a memory of a child killed by Bill Clinton, and every Kurdish family has a memory of a relative or a friend being gassed as a result of the “Rumsfeld Handshake”.</p>
<p>These memories don’t go away quickly. Only in the U.S. did things turn to the blue dress - others have far more serious things seared in their memories. They won’t forget, and we do so only at our peril.</p>
<p>How many US forces have the Kurds killed? If they are so pained I would expect revenge by the 1000’s. Maybe it’s just you and your Guardian cronies who blame all on the US. Usually things are a bit more complicated.</p>
<p>They ARE more complicated. Carter trained Savak torturers in Fort Benning, Georgia, then sent them back to Iran to do their work under U.S. supervision. (I worked for the U.S. government in Iran at the time.) The overthrow of Shah without the firing of a single shot sent shock waves through American foreign policy that last to this day. Iraq, with the blessing of the Rumsfeld Handshake, gassed the Kurds, and gassed the Iranians (500,000 dead). Clinton didn’t want to invade Iraq, so first he tried genocide - a million dead, half of them children - and tried to cut a deal with the Iraqi Minister of Defense and Chemical Ali to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When that failed, he concocted the Big Lie of 1998 and sold it to all those wonderfully experienced Democrats. Then he kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, and bombed Iraq (December 1998) in the largest carpet bombing attack since Viet Nam. </p>
<p>Oh, they remember. They will remember the first day they had to send their daughter out to have sex for money in order to eat, having already been the victims of Betrayus’ ethnic cleansing. They will remember that between July 2007 and October 2007, more than 600,000 people left Iraq while the U.S. media jumped all over the two busloads that returned. They will remember what their support of western values and liberal-style democracy got them. </p>
<p>“I would expect revenge by the 1000’s.”</p>
<p>Isn’t one 9/11 enough for you? Have you no shame?</p>
<p>Mini, it sounds like you’re speaking Ron Paul’s words on foreign policy. That has the ring of “non-intervention” to my ears.</p>
<p>We’ll have to wait and see whether the improved security situation that has come with the surge will encourage people to return. If they do return, we’ll find out if the surge brought the lower levels of violence we have now or if the ethnic homogenization brought on by emigration lowered violence levels. What’s the source of your statistics, Mini? I’m not questioning their validity, they just have more specificity than the UNHCR numbers I’m used to seeing. I’d like to read into them.</p>
<p>Barrons is right, there is not a significant level of anger over the the gassings of the late 1980s. From 1983 to 1989, support for Iraq’s chemical weapons program did not come solely from the United States. West Germany, Singapore, Spain, India, and the Netherlands all provided WMD chemicals, know-how, and equipment to Iraq. The Halabja gassing was done with sarin. The precursors of sarin were provided to Iraq by Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, and West Germany. This information was provided by Iraq to UN weapons inspectors.</p>
<p>Few Kurds are angry at the United States for its support of Iraq’s WMD programs. It is our support of Turkey against the PKK, both politically and militarily, that is the source of anti-US anger. When Turkish jets bomb Kurdish villages inside Iraq, the planes are F4 Phantoms. Given the PKK’s aims, independence and territory, I highly doubt that they would strike the United States. They have shown a greater willingness to attack Turkey and Turkish soldiers.</p>
<p>“What’s the source of your statistics, Mini? I’m not questioning their validity, they just have more specificity than the UNHCR numbers I’m used to seeing. I’d like to read into them.”</p>
<p>I provided the sources. You should read again. 600,000 “ethnically cleansed” in four months by General Betrayus. A million killed by Bill Clinton, including a child in virtually every extended (non-Kurdish family). Daughters sent out to earn bread for their families by selling themselves. </p>
<p>“Few Kurds are angry at the United States for its support of Iraq’s WMD programs.”</p>
<p>Have you met any? How about some with dead relatives? (I don’t think you have any idea of what you are talking about.)</p>
<p>Almost 70% of Iraqis - Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds - think it is a good idea to kill Americans. Mothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, religious, secular, pro-democratic, pro-Iranian. It is the single idea that unites the country. </p>
<p>“Mini, it sounds like you’re speaking Ron Paul’s words on foreign policy. That has the ring of “non-intervention” to my ears.”</p>
<p>1.6 million dead. 4 1/2 million displaced; 2.5 million external refugees. Systematic ethnic cleansing. About a ring of “anti-genocide”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure about that. Something tells me Mini would like the US to intervene in Darfur, Paulites would not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that question is not indicative of the ignorance I suspect is the root cause of your asking it.</p>
<p>Here’s the answer (it’s fantastically simple; I’m surprised you couldn’t figure it out):</p>
<p>Stormfront is a neo-nazi white activist organization. They have libertarian leanings, with a great deal of xenophobia and racism built in. Ron Paul’s libertarian policies (on free speech, gun control, etc. etc.) tally perfectly with their cause’s goals, and Paul’s stance on naturalization and immigration further appeals to them, as does his non-intervention, isolationist foreign policy (because it will stop aid to Israel and Africa, both things that white nationalists hate).</p>
<p>Therefore, they put an ad in at the bottom of their forum (and have more posts in various subforums linked to) about Ron Paul, in an attempt to get their members to vote for him/try to get others to vote for him.</p>
<p>I don’t see why this is difficult to understand. That ad was not put there by the Paul campaign, and doesn’t mean he’s a racist nor that he condones white nationalism. Yes, the ad links to a Ron Paul site. Luckily, the wonder of the Internet is that one need not own a website to create a link to it.</p>
<p>Pretty simple.</p>