Paul-Haters Caught Planning To Dress Up As KKK, Pose As Paul Supporters

You can't control who endorses you. Louis Farrakhan endorses Obama and no one calls Obama a racist.

Pretty funny just read Buster's post below calling Paul supporters white supremacist, bigots, racist, and Nazi's. No hate there! And he is not the only one, just look at that Unimatrix who on every post calls Paul suppporters some kind of name. Nope not Hate! Heck, I've been here a short time and have been called every name in the book. Hateful? And then look at your post calling them vengeful and hateful people. Why do you guys hate Paul supporters?

I never said you said ALL. Why the name calling and hate? You sound like a few other People on here. I wonder why. LOL

When your comments get 6 up votes in a few minutes it is a bit suspicious. I'm just saying be a bit smarter about it. If you have to create multiple account to vote your post up to feel good about yourself then I've got no problem with it.

So, quite awhile is 17 days?

If Ron Paul wanted to destroy the country, he would just let Obama keep blowing up the national debt like there's no tomorrow without saying anything about it.

Can you tell me a Politician that doesn't have some racist, bigoted, or deviant supporters?

I'm guessing you have never made a grammatical error in your lifetime.

"Let's see these guys most certainly support Obama...."

Any proof? Or is this pure speculation on your part?

The supporting articles indicate that the instigator is a Herman Cain supporter. This is just GOP infighting.

Who supports Obama exactly ? Not the bloggers , not me , The idiot facebook person ? And really , racism is just to tool to keep economic INequality going . It is ALL about elitist , the wealthy aristocracy lost their titles long ago , but they kept their power . In spite of all the inbreeding , which is always a mistake ....

Whomever the instigators were supporting, one thing remains clear:
The ESTABLISHMENT (R or D) will do anything it takes to prevent RP from becoming POTUS

Yep. Probably. From the Masters of the Universe, Inc. playbook: "Keep 'em fighting amongst themselves and they won't be looking to fight us."

EXACTLY!

Would it be a BFD if they actually carried out their plans?

Good comment Ziggy, chocked full of evidence!

There were also a lot of Gang members who supported Obama, does Obama support violent gangs?

I personally know 2 gang members who supported Obama, one of them went to prison for 8 years for armed robbery. Since they support Obama, I guess Obama must support them too right?

Are you just as concerned with all of Obama's racist supporters and his questionable friends.
Since Obama hung out with Tony Rezko, does that make Obama a criminal. Since Obama hung out with Rev. Wright, does that mean he hates america. Since obama hung out with Bill Ayers, does that make Obama a terrorist? Since Farrakhan supported Obama, does that mean, Obama is an anti-semite?

Now what would Obama have to say about this?

I have been very clear in my denunciation” of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Obama said at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, “I did not solicit his support.” Obama said he “can not censor” individual endorsements but said there is no affiliation with his campaign and Farrakhan.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/

Also, don't you find it funny that you posted an article about racism from a website that at the top says, NEWSONE for Black America. What if it said NEWSONE for white america. Would you consider that to be a racist website?

You can assume whatever you want. It's actually entertaining to watch you attempt to make an equivalence of 2 gang members "you" know to 10 leaders/High ranking members of national hate groups, not to mention that Paul in many cases has shown support for these white supremacists.

I think you will be hard pressed to find a picture of President Obama hanging with the Crips and attending their functions.

But hey keep going dude I hope they do run RP in 2012.

My example of the gang members is no less valid than your argument that RP supports racists, just because they support him. You are right, the argument has no validity, which is why I posted it, to expose your non-sensical accusation.

Ron Paul supports racists because he's one of them.

I don't feel exposed. But again assume as you wish. Your argument is confused. The point "is" reciprocity. A man can't pick his supporters but he sure as hell can pick who he supports back. This whole thing is a moot point. RP is a racist.

Probably not. You and I could dress as kluxers and pretend to support anyone, and it probably wouldn't amount to much, especially if our target candidate had enough of a brain (read miniscule) to disavow us.

So why did you post the link if you believe that a person can't choose his supporters. Did you just figure this out because I posted a link to what Obama said? Many think Joe Biden's comment about 7/11 and people from India was racist. Does Obama know that guy?

Just having a little fun.

Why do you say that Judah?

Because arguing with a person that negates his own argument a little later is a lot more fun.

PetEr_Alan_ColE
BusterPoindexter:
"Can you tell me a Politician that doesn't have some racist, bigoted, or deviant supporters?"

You seem confused. The point is not what nutjob supports you, the point is about what you support. Next question would be:

Why?

Why do these racists, deviants, zealots, and hate groups support RP? Could be he courts it if his rhetoric appeals to their ideologies?

I know he's not stupid. How stupid do you have to be to accept the invitation as keynote speaker for the John Birch Society if you are not a racist or are not pandering to hate groups?

Give it up, your argument never had any substance. Stop repeating yourself.

I've never said he doesn't have any supporters that are not racist, bigoted, or deviant. My argument was that all groups have these people. Do you think there are any racist, deviants, or bigots in the democrat party?

"Why do these racists, deviants, zealots, and hate groups support RP? "

All politicians have these kinds of supporters would you not agree?

We're in a loop here. See my previous post.

Yes. The qualifier is why?

Yeah, I think we are not getting anywhere and I'm getting tired. I'm going to smoke a bowl and crash for the night.

Take care and have a good night.

I agree. Enjoy your bowl. I will have a toke for you.
Have a great night.

Best,

Ziggy

Lead blogger Casey Gane-McCalla, of NewsOne wrote a and performed a racist rap song about preferring White women over Black women and implied in the song about having sex with an under-aged Britany Spears.

In the grand scheme of things, he isn't very credible to use as a source to paint someone else as a racist. Just sayin'...

This sounds like something you would do.

So once some guy decides that because his skin is pink his shit don't stink he can't donate money to a candidate anymore? If that were the case every baby boomer in the nation would have to stop sending money to campaigns for fear of tainting them with thier bigotry.

There are stupid people in the world. I say they and their money should meet me sometime tommorow afternoon so I can separte them from it. Then I can donate it to Ron so he can compete with the real bigoted asshats in the race like Romney and Obama.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright

race bait

Well put. You speak the truth. Excellent post.

Very true. If someone wants to be left alone politicaly, which most white supremicists do, they have damn few candidates that want to leave folks alone to chose from. The rest of the feild is a bunch of nanny state nazi wannabees and the democrats keep feilding people who make the Republcians look like hands off minarchists. So what's a white is might kinda guy supposed to do politicaly?

Lets face facts, the Democrats have their shady charachters who toss barrels full of money after them too. Weren't the Chinese caught funneling a crapload of money that way? And what about AIPAC funding campaigns, isn't hate of Palestinians a kind of racism too? If we had to get rid of all the dirty money in politics no one could afford to run a campaign.

So I say lay off the accusations. If you want to win elections you have to hold your nose and take some money from some folks you may not really like. That's all that is going on here. Politics. It's a dirty game. If you want lily white hands then don't play.

So should a candidate be judged by his character and record or by who his supporters are?

I also agree with some of RP's policies, but the ones I disagree with trump the ones I agree on.

One man's idea of liberty should not abrogate the inalienable rights of others.

I agree. The 14th amendment is a hinge pin of the legitimacy of the constitution, without it, it would just be a piece of paper with no core integrity,

I wish he would discus it more too !

The problem with your interpretation of the 14th amendment is it makes states nothing more than administrative agencies of the federal government. If that's the case then why bother with having state legislatures in the first place? If every action of those legislatures has to be reviewed and approved by the federal government why not simply have the president appoint governors and abolish the state legisatures and constitutions?

It seems to me the 14th Amendment has a lofty goal behind it but it's a bad piece of legislation that turns the rest of the constituion on it's head and makes the whole state-federal system irrelevent. We have seen what unbridled federal power has brought us over the last 100 years and it's not a good thing. Maybe we need to try going old school and passing the power back to the states and try that out for a while.

Will that mean some states, like Arizona for instance, will do dipshit stuff that discriminates against certain groups. Yes it will. But it also will allow other states to be the opposite and welcome those groups with open arms. Now we both know what the result of that will be, Arizona becoming a third world shithole and the states that are open to divirsity becoming far better places. But unless we allow the experiment to run its course we will never see the proof of concept.

We are passing into a new economic situatuion. We don't have the assets to do everything that we could in the past. No more huge military, no more globo-cop, no more cradle to grave government programs. We simply cannot afford it. No matter how you crunch the numbers the credit cards we used to pay for those things in the past are maxed out and no one is issuing us more credit. The only candidate who seems to get that fact is Ron Paul. If you put anyone but him in the white house we will get more of the same until the system colapses in on itself and we have utter economic and social chaos. Things will be REAL hard for folks then.

If we put Paul in office and he can ramp us down slowly maybe we can avoid the coming catastrophy and things will suck a bit less for everyone. Then we can look into rebuilding things in a fair and equal way again. But for now we need to deal with the bigger problems that only Ron Paul is willing to point out. Quibbling over who opresses who is not going to solve the big problems we face. All it does is distract us from the real crisis.

So are you telling me that for four score and a handful of odd years our Republic had no "core integrity"? Unitl the modification was made it was all just a piece of paper?

Yes, and four score is 80 years.

That's a rather odd view of history then.

While I agree that some state governments can do some beastly things, Arizona comes to mind here, we need to let these bad ideas play out sometimes. Also who are we to say that an idea is bad? Lots of folks seem to think that legalizing marijuana would be a horrible idea. How will we know what works or doesn't work if we don't let a few states experiment with ideas that we personaly may think are bad? Will some people get hurt? Yes. But people get hurt by bad federal law too. The system isn't perfect. No system that includes humans can ever be perfect.

The US Constitution...
By Tony Wilsdon and Carlos Petroni

The subversion of the will of the people when they vote for President through the Electoral College system poses the question: why was it set up this way? What does it say about the aims of our "founding fathers" in writing our Constitution? In this article, Tony Wilsdon reviews the key discussions around the writing of the Constitution, and the struggles that have been needed to carve out the limited democracy we have today.

The Electoral College was created by our "founding fathers" to protect the ruling class from direct popular vote, and to give more power to smaller states, and thus to protect the system from the anger of the urban masses. Under this system each state is allocated the same number of seats provided for in their vote for the House of Representatives plus an additional two votes which represent their two Senators. Electors meet after the election to choose the President.

Electors are considered to be upstanding figures of the main parties, and can be relied upon to prevent a radical challenge to the system. Only in 24 states are members of the Electoral College bound to vote according to how the people voted in their state. In other states they can vote as they wish. As a result of this Electoral system, in a close race if a candidate of the working class and poor won a plurality of the popular vote for President, with say 40% of the vote, the delegates of the other two parties, with 60% of the Electoral College seats, would have a majority to decide who would become President.

Following the issuance of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the political leaders of the country, all people of great substance whether slave owners or rich merchants, sat down at the Constitutional Convention to write the Constitution.

One of the most quoted statements at this Convention was that by Thomas Jefferson: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing ... it is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The trees of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural measure." However, he was in a tiny minority.

One of the key figures was James Madison. Writing in the Federalist Papers he expressed the concern of most of the new aristocracy when he wrote that the new Union should be able to "repress domestic faction and insurrection." He argued that the government needed to protect itself from "the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." Madison explained what kind of rebellion he was concerned with: "a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property..."

His solution was to organize a powerful propertied faction against the other faction. Here we see explicitly, at the heart of the Constitution, protection of class interests rather than the democracy of the people. The institutions that came out of this Convention denied the vote to the vast majority of the American people: blacks, native Americans, white males who owned no property and all women.

Alexander Hamilton explained that: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share of government...Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy..." He supported a President and Senate chosen for life!

To prevent a strong social movement from capturing power through the popular vote to a bi-annual House of Representatives, it was decided to create checks and balances in the system. This included the Supreme Court to be appointed by the President, a Senate elected not by the people but by state representatives, and a President elected by an Electoral College. Specifically, James Madison argued for a "well constructed Senate" as "sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors or delusions," because "there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most readily to lament or condemn." Such contempt for the people's judgment could not have been better expressed.

The Constitution they developed was designed to protect the 3% who had really large holdings of wealth, and who created the Constitution, and also the one-third of the population, like city merchants, medium size farmers etc., who benefited enough economically to have an interest in preserving the system. This was the political base around which the "founding fathers" were willing to restrict democratic rights. This was a buffer against the blacks, native Americans and the very poor white population who they feared would rebel. As Howard Zinn described in his book A People's History of the United States, this enabled "the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law - all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity."

To make the Constitution more palatable, the "Bill of Rights" was passed. This document seemed to guarantee that the government would be a protector of people's liberties: to speak, to publish, to petition, to worship, to assemble, to have a fair trial etc. However, what was missing from this was the fact that the government they created would never be a guarantor of such rights. Subsequent events have shown, time and again, in the brutal treatment of African American protesters, in the attacks on the labor movement, with the Palmer raid arrests of socialists before World War I, and in the recent trampling of the democratic right to protest against the WTO in Seattle, that when threatened, the government reverts to its central role as guarantor of the economic interests of the elite, and tramples on the democratic rights of all who protest against it.

Continued at source: http://socialistalternative.org/oldjustice/justice22/2.html

Excellent Ziggy! :)

So what does your cut and paste job mean in referance to the 14th Amendment giving the Constitution a "core integrety". If the whole deal is set up to preserve the power of the aristocricy then what good does it do to give that body of aristocrats the power to tell the states how they can treat their lower clases?

The reason that a central government is needed to keep states in check is evident by the track record of states denying rights to citizens based on bigoted criteria. You want 50 feudal states, I want one nation, and a constitution with no loopholes for the wealthy or otherwise privileged.

But the federal government has a spotty record at best of keeping the states in check. It seems to me that when you as the feds to guard your rights you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If you leave it up to the states a few might go all Arizona on you but most will be fairly decent on the subject. If the feds aren't taxing you to death then maybe people who felt opressed in one state may more freely move to a state that wouldn't opress them. Then the backward hick states would suffer the brain drain and get passed up by the open minded states. But counting on the feds is playing craps with your liberties. The feds are the ones who want us to treat all arabs like terrorists.

I get that your intentions are positive but don't you see how what you describe is only going to result in feudal states most likely defined by bigotry, and whatever crazy laws a state deems "constitutional" ? We have been there and it did not work,

The fact that they planned it on Facebook tells me that this was just a stunt to "keep the pot boiling". It was as if they wanted the whole thing to be discovered and never had any plans to actually pull it off. Mostly BS, in all probability.