SailorPtah wrote:Dude, when you agree with some part of what I've quoted off of a racist/misogynistic/homophobic/anti-Semitic website, you probably shouldn't enthusiastically second it and go on to revel in how non-racist/etc. such people are.
I also wasn't saying how non-racist those sites are, I was saying how non-racist Ron Paul and his supporters are. There's a difference. It's why I mentioned Jon Stewart's fanboy attitude toward him. Ron Paul has attracted support from a diverse spectrum (I've lost count of all the ethnicities, orientations, and political affiliations I've met who get behind him), because his positions strike a chord in those who respect consistent principals and protecting liberty for individuals, such as the the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to marry who you want.
To expand on my comment: all Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. should vote for Ron Paul because he's one of the few that wants to make sure they can keep
being Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. however they please with no interference from on high.
(If you're wondering, "But how are Catholics and Protestants being interfered with from on high?" then check out the current controversy in Houston where the Veteran Affairs Military Funeral Director is barring references to Jesus by pastors. The attempts at interfering with Muslims in TN and NYC are more commonly known and equally deplorable. Ron Paul opposes both, while other politicians tend to go for one or the other.)
A more appropriate response would include something like "all the other stuff this site says is BS, and I wish these horrible people weren't on my side, but what can you do."
Which is totally why you replied in this fashion when I pointed out multiple examples of racism from people who purport to be allied with "your side" and not contrite sarcasm just like I did.
That was the whole point of the follow-up paragraph, in which I described how racists are out of luck if they support Ron Paul. This isn't new - a few nutters came out of the woodwork back in 2008 and they were appropriately mocked and shunned. For example, one KKK guy donated a few hundred dollars, so Ron Paul just shrugged and spent it on supporting a cadre of liberty candidates (which included minorities). I'm actually surprised they're still at it given Paul's solid economic support for minority business owners over the decades, though it makes sense since being a racist is not associated with good critical thinking skills.
I was also arguing that, among people who espouse racist theories and engage in racially charged accusations and stereotypes, it's types like Garofalo and Sheila Jackson Lee (the TX representative of the district I live in) who are more prevalent. They think they can't possibly be racist because they support "social justice." ("But I'm a cheerleader" becomes "But I'm a progressive.") And then you get groups of them together calling for any minorities who disagree with them to be lynched. *facepalm*
I only go on about them so much because you never seem to acknowledge they exist or, as your sarcastic response indicated, take them seriously. (Garofalo, I admit, can be dismissed pretty quickly; I mentioned her mainly because it was a recent example committed by a high profile left-winger.) Your own incredulity at the thought that there are just as many racists on the left as on the right is the kind of thing that has caused the left to become so widely infested with bigotry over the years, to the point where that's where most of it comes from these days in American politics.
In other news, this has given me a great idea: Ron Paul as Alucard, fighting the monsters who threaten our liberties at the behest of his master, Lady Liberty. Obama as Dandy, Cheney as the Major, Hillary as Zorin, Romney and Perry as Luke and Jan, Palin as Rippy, Bernanke as Doc, etc. (It doesn't mesh perfectly, but the imagery is cool.)
