Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[Munson]

These debates aren't entertaining anymore. farging Mitt Romney "I don't support discrimination against homosexuals....I am against homosexual marriage."

[phattymatty]

don't know why i punished myself but i watched the whole debate last night. those people really are like cartoon characters. hardly any of them can answer a simple question without dropping the same bullet points.  even though he goes off the deep end every now and the, ron paul is the only one who you could tell actually thought about the issues and had his own ideas. actually made a lot of sense 90% of the time. huntsman didn't seem much better than the other weirdos however he didn't make me fist-clenchingly angry. this whole group is like a gift-wrapped present for obama. can't believe bachman is still even invited on stage. what a mongoloid.

[ice grillin you]

i doubt theres a single issue where me and michelle bachman arent polar opposites on and i might move out of the country if she ever were president but i actually respect her more than anyone in that group...just because i think she actually believes what she says and for the most part is honest even if shes a right wing zelout.....i think shes pretty smart as well and would come off as such if she didnt look like an extra from "they live"

id say the same thing about ron paul but i honestly dont think he knows what hes saying hes so bat shtein crazy

[Rome]

I have no interest in anything those pieces of crap have to say at this point.   I do have a terrifying feeling that no matter who wins they're going to beat Obama because the crazy white racists in this country have had enough of the black guy in the White House and will vote for anyone over him.

[phattymatty]

i doubt theres a single issue where me and michelle bachman arent polar opposites on and i might move out of the country if she ever were president but i actually respect her more than anyone in that group...just because i think she actually believes what she says and for the most part is honest even if shes a right wing zelout.....i think shes pretty smart as well and would come off as such if she didnt look like an extra from "they live"

id say the same thing about ron paul but i honestly dont think he knows what hes saying hes so bat shtein crazy

i think it's the exact opposite...paul just starts talking about the first thing that pops in his head and at least to me he seems the most reasonable. michele had like 3 talking points last night that her people told her about and she answered every question with them. what's your stance on the troops being removed from iraq? "Kingston pipeline yeah! usa! usa!"

[phattymatty]

and god damn newt and romney...it's going to come down to them and i can't tell which one is more of a condescending prick. and then you have santorum who thought he was going to get applause for saying he had a no discrimination policy in his office. as if that was radical.

[Rome]

Umm...

[ice grillin you]

i doubt theres a single issue where me and michelle bachman arent polar opposites on and i might move out of the country if she ever were president but i actually respect her more than anyone in that group...just because i think she actually believes what she says and for the most part is honest even if shes a right wing zelout.....i think shes pretty smart as well and would come off as such if she didnt look like an extra from "they live"

id say the same thing about ron paul but i honestly dont think he knows what hes saying hes so bat shtein crazy

paul just starts talking about the first thing that pops in his head and at least to me he seems the most reasonable. michele had like 3 talking points last night that her people told her about and she answered every question with them. what's your stance on the troops being removed from iraq? "Kingston pipeline yeah! usa! usa!"

im not talking about the debate as i didnt watch it...im talking about just in general....id suggest looking into ron paul more if you think hes reasonable....he is insanity personified...not to mention hes not really fond of the darkies...tho being an old man from texas i write that off to him being an ignorant elder than him being a proactive racist

bachman is flat wrong on basically every issue but is steady and is sincere....ron paul should be living on another planet

[phattymatty]

oh yeah i know he's part lunatic but thats my point...compared to these other beasts on stage he still seems to have the most grasp on reality. at least in the debates that i've seen.

[ice grillin you]

his best attribute by far is his delivery...presence cadence personality emotion voice all make him extremely likable sounding and almost make you forget the things he actually says...he just seems like a cute friendly old man that you would want for christmas and then be able to pat him on the head whenever you wanted to hear him speak

i think hes very entertaining and i give him full credit for being the maniac he is and still making it to a prez debate stage but good lord if he was president the country.....yikes

honestly the perfect job for him would be president of texas if it actually ever secceeded

[Munson]

don't know why i punished myself but i watched the whole debate last night. those people really are like cartoon characters. hardly any of them can answer a simple question without dropping the same bullet points.  even though he goes off the deep end every now and the, ron paul is the only one who you could tell actually thought about the issues and had his own ideas. actually made a lot of sense 90% of the time. huntsman didn't seem much better than the other weirdos however he didn't make me fist-clenchingly angry. this whole group is like a gift-wrapped present for obama. can't believe bachman is still even invited on stage. what a mongoloid.

Huntsman up until last night has been perfectly reasonable and would very possibly get my vote over Obama if he got the nomination. Last night you saw him kinda take a little swing to the Right, but he managed to do so in a way that wouldn't doom him in the national election.

Dude's incredibly smart and a moderate who would probably be a pretty pragmatic president. It makes me sad that one of these crazy iceholes and/or douche bags is going to beat him. I hope he turns down any request to be VP to any of these people

[Eagles_Legendz]

Bachmann is nuts.  I think she and Perry just regurgitate right wing talking points without any thought behind them.  How can you be a practicing lawyer and be in favor of abolishing courts which don't put out decisions you agree with?  I also loved her saying that the judiciary was designed to be the weakest when it was clearly the executive branch.  I actually think Santorum represents what IGY said about Bachmann.  I think he believes every single thing he says, but his beliefs are terrifying and scare the shtein out of me.  Pretty sure any of those 3 getting elected would destroy the country. 

Gingrich is a maniac too.  I would think he would be less likely than those three to come unhinged as president, but I'm really not sure.  I dunno if his ego would handle it.  The things he may decide to do because he thinks it would be smart...

I think Romney/Huntsman would probably just be generic Republican Presidents.  I don't think either care about social issues and just have to pretend they do to get through the primary.

Regarding Paul: IGY, I know this probably be irrelevant to you, but the president of the NAACP in Texas came out in support of Paul regarding the newsletter fiasco: http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/01/14/naacp-president-defends-ron-paul-against-recent-smear-attempts/

I think he needs to take accountability for what was published in the articles 20 years ago, though I don't think I have seen anyone attempting to assert that he wrote anything since he was a practicing doctor at the time and the newsletters were fairly voluminous, but I think he should still take more responsibility than he has for things being published within his own newsletters.

WSJ had a pretty good article on him today.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577100730656321606.html

He does himself a disservice with the way he delivers his foreign policy message.  He should stop trying to explain whether Iran is justified in getting a nuclear weapon.  He comes across as a pacifist during the debates which severely limits his ceiling.  He should really just stick to the fact that he would defend the country from an imminent threat (if it presented itself), that the country can't afford another war, and he isn't going to preemptively attack countries based on awful information.

He's too extreme in his stances, though as that article points out he's moderated them a tad, but I love the way Fox News etc all can't stand him, and the fact that he just says what he thinks 100% of the time, and is just as willing to tell you to your face as he is behind your back.  He has no chance at the nomination, but I'm still rooting for him to win Iowa because it would send the right into a hilarious frenzy.

[ice grillin you]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html

With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it's worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He's a really creepy bigot.

Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul's worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called "paleolibertarianism," which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.

How, then, has Paul become a figure of admiration among social liberals?

One reason is that nobody is attacking him. Paul is (correctly) considered to have no chance to actually win the GOP nomination, so debate moderators have not bothered to research his past, instead tossing off generalized questions that allow him to portray himself on his preferred terms.  The Republican Establishment is focusing all its fire on Newt Gingrich, and indeed, Paul's rise in Iowa would greatly aid Mitt Romney's campaign by preventing an acceptable alternative from emerging from the state with momentum.

In this atmosphere, Paul has been able to cast himself in the most flattering light. Since 2008, he has managed to rally Republican (and even non-Republican) opposition to the failures and excesses of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Sullivan writes, in his endorsement of Paul:

Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people's lives.

"Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America?" What on Earth does that have to do with Ron Paul? Here's a chunk from Kirchick's story:

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust." ...

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false.

There's way, way more of this in Kirchick's piece. The slight complicating factor is that Paul's newsletter was unsigned, so even though it purported to express his views, he can plausibly deny having authored any single passage personally. But the general themes of white racial paranoia are so completely pervasive that the notion that they don't represent Paul's own thinking is completely implausible. It is possible that another contributor could have snuck in a line here or there that did not reflect Paul's thinking, but they couldn't have set the consistent ideological line for his newsletter. Paul may be a dissident from the main thrust of Republican policy-making but this is not because he's more tolerant or more sensible than the leaders of the GOP. It's because he's crazier.

[Rome]

Paul is a deranged individual but his line of thinking is pretty common in this country.  He's wildly popular with the teahadists and that's who is driving the bus for the GOP these days.  They have to go crazy or they run the risk of being marginalized by the fanatics in the party.

[Eagles_Legendz]

I think this article is the best summary of it and is in line with what I said.  Most people state that Paul didn't write what was in the letters, but I think he tacitly approved of it because they were a source of income for him then.  I'm doubting the NAACP president comes out to support him if there was a pervasive belief that he was responsible for that wording. 

Regardless, as I said, he needs to take responsibility for what was written, even if he states that he didn't write it.  He had final oversight and needs to take blame for what was written.

Anyway, this is an even-handed summary, and this paragraph sums up my feelings:
"Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter