Cialis fr


Ron Paul could be whacko

*holes, 2012 campaign

This ‘Ron Paul’. He’s a kook?

In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims
Peter Hamby | CNN | Dec 30 2011

In his 1987 manifesto “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

Hmm.

“The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,” Paul wrote.

Let’s see if I get this right. One of those lucky people, like diabetics and dialysis patients dependent upon life-long medical support, an AIDS patient, she/he should work like a Mali slave to survive? I anticipate problems. I see a giddy morticians’ lobby.

“Every year new groups organize to demand their ‘rights,’” he continued. “White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”

You distinguish yourself with courage, Ron Paul. White folks get shafts, screws, short ends of the stick, lumps of coal, turds in their punch goblets, runts in their kennels, and rats under their chalets. Dude, why not have a White Caucus?

And well done, sir.

Share
8 COMMENTS

8 Comments

  1. MedfordTim  •  Dec 31, 2011 @5:38 am
    avatar

    Seems to me that Congress has always BEEN a White Caucus…

  2. Jan Rogozinski  •  Dec 31, 2011 @8:49 am
    avatar

    On the AIDS issue Paul was less than 100% correct. But I am a gay male, who wastes almost as much time watching pornography on the web as straight men do. There are a large number of gay men who claim to be promiscuous and who are adamant they will not wear condoms. Well, maybe they’re simply boasting, just as straight men do, of their imaginary conquests. However, if any of them are telling the truth, than Paul also was not 100% wrong.

    On the White Caucus. Please present some rational, logical, consistent and not hypocritical defenses for present policy on the following issues.

    (1) Everyone in the USA, including Obama, agrees that having a “Jewish state” is the greatest positive accomplishment ever, one which must be protected and rewarded at all costs. Yet everyone e abhors the mere idea that, say, Egypt might become an “Islamic” state. If a Jewish state is praiseworthy, then a Christian or a Muslim state must be equally praiseworthy. If you disagree with the last sentence, then on what rational grounds do you disagree. (Mentioning events that happened more than 66 years ago is not the same as providing a rational reason for this contraction.)

    And I’ve been there. Israel is a militantly and rigidly Jewish state. A Christian cannot buy cheeseburgers or pepperoni pizzas because none are for sale–ever. A Christian cannot do anything on Saturday because everything is closed. Perhaps these are trivial complaints, but most fears about “Sharia law” also are about trivial matters. At a more serious level, compare the percentage of Christian and Muslim Israelis with powerful positions in government, industry, the media, academia, etc. to the percentage pf Christians and Muslims in the total population.

    If making everyone in Israel follow Talmudic law is acceptable to you, then why is a Muslim state that would make everyone follow Sharia law unacceptable?

    (2) Having gone on about the previous question, I’ll try to be brief. Everyone praises affirmative action directed against White Males. Everyone praises Black groups that work to advance the interests of Blacks at the expense of Whites. Everyone praises “Hispanic” groups that are working to advance the financial and political interests of “Hispanic” by taking benefits from Whites. So give me a logical and coherent reason why we shouldn’t praise with equal vigor White groups that work to benefit Whites at the expense of Blacks and “Hispanics”?

    Slavery is no excuse because it ended 145 years ago. No one alive ever was a slave. In fact, is anyone still alive whose great-grand-father was a slave? There was an immense amount of immigration from Europe 1890 to 1920. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the White population never owned slaves or benefited from slavery. Indeed, no one in their families ever took part in or benefited from slavery or any form of anti-Black “discrimination” prior to 1970. So why with Affirmative action are we punishing those who never practiced slavery or discrimination to reward those that never suffered from slavery or (if they are under 40) never suffered from discriminatory laws.

    Unless you can present some non-laughable justification for the present hypocrisy and schizophrenia about race, then I submit Paul is correct. (By the way, in addition to gay porn, I surf widely, which is why I am here. I can report that white nationalist groups are not enthusiastic about Paul because they beleive he is not really one of them.)

    I’ ll come back in a couple of days to see if anyone has been able to present a logical defense of the current reverse racism. I suppose there is nothing criminal about holding two contradictory positions simultaneously. (“A Talmudic state is 100% positive. A Sharia state would be an abomination and an affront to religious freedoms.”) But you really must present some overt justification for these contradictions.

  3. Zach  •  Dec 31, 2011 @9:58 am
    avatar

    If you’re going to request an audience to present rational, logical arguments against your viewpoints, you might want to use fewer absolutes in your statements. For example, your logic suffers an unscheduled rapid disassembly (i.e. it blows up on the launch pad) in the very first sentence: “Everyone in the USA, including Obama, agrees..”. That statement is demonstrably false. I am in the USA, and I disagree with the premise that having a Jewish state is the “greatest positive achievement ever”. In my opinion, the development of language was the greatest achievement ever. Even if I am the only person in the USA with that viewpoint, it is sufficient to nullify your premise that “everyone in the USA” is in agreement.

    Perhaps if you present a logical argument, someone will take the time to have a rational discussion with you.

    P.S. you also might want to make some sort of point.

  4. toma  •  Dec 31, 2011 @12:17 pm
    avatar

    Jan: What Zach said.

    P.S. I noticed you edited a book. “The City is a major and important work.” Congratulations. “Throughout The City and Urban Life, the essays were written by distinguished scholars with a deep knowledge and understanding of urban life.” Interesting.

  5. Peter John  •  Dec 31, 2011 @12:39 pm
    avatar

    Jan you are not qualified to have an opinion about slavery. First, slavery was a brutal violent institution that has left scars on blacks that may take many more generations to heal. An abuse child does not instantly heal when you remove him from the abusive environment. In fact he may never heal. You should also know that Slavery was followed by Jim Crow a system of laws that was meant to continue the abuse of blacks. And even when Jim Crow was finally defeated discrimination continued and it still continues today. Just remember being as the working end of a beating stick is a lot different than being at its controlling end.

  6. toma  •  Dec 31, 2011 @1:28 pm
    avatar

    And:

    My Great Grandfather Was a Slave by Kim Pearson

    My Grandfather Was A Slave by Joyce Dinkins

  7. Grung_e_Gene  •  Dec 31, 2011 @4:04 pm
    avatar

    Getting away from Jan’s ridiculous comment did you notice how fucking cool that double bladed cardboard axe actually is???

  8. toma  •  Dec 31, 2011 @4:36 pm
    avatar

    I did. They may be dorks, but they can tailor foamboard like a motherfucker.