Stormfront White Nationalists Showing Overwhelming Support For Ron Paul

From 1870 til it's demise at the hands of the SPLC in 1986 eight out of every 10 Kluxers were Democrats .

 

Is there any evidence he even knew who he was?

 

I grabbed the pic from a random source, but you can google it. It was taken at the 46th anniversary of a civil rights march in Selma Al.

It's hard to imagine that Obama didn't realize these folks were at the same event, or that he didn't know who they were. They had both spoke at the same podium.

 

Yes, because sometimes they are. For instance, I wouldn't force a rape victim to have her kid if she didn't want it.

 

Another anti-Paul thread consisting of transparent character assassination and mud-slinging from unprincipled statist nitwits who worship our authoritarian government.

Ron Paul is the quintessential anti-racist. He's in favor of a "liberal" immigration policy; he favors repealing Federal drug laws which have kept minorities in prison for decades; his libertarian ideology treats people as individuals and not groups; and he favors abolishing the Federal Reserve, which has served to transfer untold amounts of wealth from the working classes to the elites.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will try to end the incestuous relationship between big government and big business, and that is the only reason why progressives in the Democratic and Republican party seek to destroy him.

Don't fall for their propaganda. Ron Paul is a man of the people and the establishment will do whatever it takes to discredit him.

 

Character assassination. Welcome to my avatar.

 

But his segregation of the Federal Civil Service is not.

Wilson was clearly a racist and a eugenicist.

 

The fact that you actually registered to that site says volumes. I hope for your sake that you are kidding around.

 

Meh, Lincoln was a racist too based on some of the things he wrote. Times are very different now, that's all. The left would love nothing more than to go back and discredit and demonize the founding fathers, as well as every other President besides Clinton and Obama, based on the PC standards that we have in place today.

 

Lincoln was definitely a racist, but his greatest offense was being a tyrant and a war-monger, but that's another discussion entirely...

Many of the Founders were racist. That cannot be denied, but they had redeeming qualities and many of them attempted to make amends by supporting the abolitionist movement and emancipating their slaves. For their time, many of them were extraordinarily "progressive"; Wilson, on the other hand, had little to no redeeming qualities and was actually regressive as it concerned race relations in the US. The Founders moved forward, but Wilson moved backwards, and think that is the substantive difference.

 

Uh, I have also been banned from the DU & gopusa & Conservative Underground & Hannity & Protest Warrior (The Current Liberal One) & The Red Leather Couch (Drinking Forum) & ar15.com & calguns.net & Neutral Underground & Various Boating Forums & Firearms Forums ... but mostly Political Forums ,,,

 

I don't disagree with you. I just don't see the point in going back and labeling old Presidents as racist or not. I don't really see what good it accomplishes, other than give the left more ammunition to hate the country's foundation.

 

Lefties have issues with America (& it's Racist Bigoted Homophobic Imperialist Colonialist Past) that will NEVER heal .

 

I was banned from DU for not being a progressive. My argument is I'm a liberal just read up on John Locke's definition of a liberal for my proof that I'm a liberal. Also banned from ALIPAC for saying if Ron Paul was in charge during WWII there would be no Jews left alive today. I thought they were just against illegal immigration. (*)(*)(*)(*) ALIPAC.

 

So their church policy is racism.

 

Ok, but would their views be considered as liberal or conservative?

 

I'm merely pointing out to the resident leftists that the progressive poster-boy - Woodrow Wilson - was a racist. I think it's hypocritical for them to attack the Founders as racists while ignoring the regressive racism that their ideological forefathers engaged in. At least the Founders moved forward and made progress in race relations; if it hadn't been for them, the abolitionist movement would have been set back decades; Wilson, on the other hand, set race relations back, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

What does times have to do with it, either they were racist or not, either they owned slaves or they didn't. Wrong is wrong no matter what timeframe it was in.

 

Classical liberalism and conservatism are philosophies of government, not race.

 

Your right, you would just rather rewrite the history books and celebrate the good and deny the bad.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

That's easy to say in hindsight, but I believe most people today would have been virulent racists themselves had they lived back then.

People like to think they're special, and that they possess a moral clarity and courage that past generations did not, but that is just delusional arrogance. Most people are just conformists, and they wouldn't have had half the courage and conviction that the Founding Fathers did.

So, yes, many of the Founders were racists, but viewed in the context of their time, many of them were also very "progressive". It's easy to condemn them with the benefit of hindsight, but I doubt many people here could say they would have been any different or better had they lived during such times.

 

While you would do the opposite.

 

Sure it does. You're attempting to equate a political philosophy with the racist view of the people holding it, but that is illogical.

And to answer your loaded question, the old Democrats could be considered BOTH "liberals" and "conservatives", since both political philosophies were averse to centralized power structures.

 

Is this just another guilt by association thing?