BLAG

I just installed BLAG, thinking it would be great to be part of a group of anarchists who care about linux, GNU, and open-source. I was pretty upset when I booted firefox. Why would you package the version of firefox with a ron paul site for the homepage? Ron Paul is a racist, both in the border sense and in the 'thinks black people are criminals' sense.

I'd like to post a link to the article fuck ron paul but this is my first post.

He's also anti-choice.

Look no further than his own site for examples of his demented racist sexist idiot old-white-man ass.

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. "
check out his own site (again, I'd post the link but it's forbidden)

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society."
from his own site

Besides all that, he's an electoral candidate. Someone who thinks pushing a candidate has something to do with anarchism, is someone who knows almost nothing about anarchism. What's wrong with making the homepage Infoshop or Ainfos or something?

It's actually not packaged /IN/ firefox, the home page sends you here which then has a redirect:

http://www.blagblagblag.org/homepage/

I periodically change it to various other random sites (e.g. wikipedia). I'm sending it to infoshop news right now, but I may change it since that page takes forever to load and a "first" page should probably be faster.




I do NOT believe this, for one. I know there is some quotes flying around the 'net about this, but they are mis-attributed to him.



Heh. Go for it now. ;)



He wants to push it to the states instead of having the federal government involved. To me that's tolerable.



Yes, his anti-immigrant propaganda sucks. If you actually listen to him speak about the issue (or read his writings about it) he literally says immigrants are being scapegoated since everyone is going broke. He's actually for immigration in general. The problem is that the US is basically saying "free kittens!" and then surprised when people line up to get kittens. It pisses off people who may be losing their jobs to know that their tax money is going to pay for whatever for other people.



Fundamentally, he's for Austrian economics, which informs all of his politics. Austrian economics certainly believes in property rights. It is basically a minarchist (anarcho-capitalist it's also called) philosophy. Capitalism without dollars.



Ya, electoral politics makes me puke. Here's the last time I voted:
http://jebba.blagblagblag.org/?p=128

I see RP as the candidate for minarchy, which would at least tolerate anarchists. He articulated and educated many people about the fact that there even IS an empire, let alone that it should be shut down. For instance, Bhutto gets hit and he's on TV saying, "well, we dumped $10 billion into a military dictator who overthrew democracy". That type of signal rarely hits the airwaves.



Got another URL you can suggest? Also, you likely noticed all the stuff in firefox bookmarks, ya? If you're interested in helping out with the bookmarks see this:
http://bugzilla.blagblagblag.org/show_bug.cgi?id=634



For me, in the end, RP would let anarchists go about and build what they want without tracking them, spying on them, harassing them, etc.

Plus he's the only person with any chance of hell of getting in the white house that would stop all the wars the US is waging. That would be huge itself.

-Jeff
(first post of the day, so a bit unclear perhaps)

I just feel like whenever I discuss Ron Paul, it's people who aren't undocumented immigrants or women who are willing to put aside his immigration and abortion stances in favor of some other one. And as for a minarchist, he's a Libertarian. He talks big about diminishing government, but what does he way when it comes to the prison system? Fuck-all, that's what. He couldn't ethically spend the taxpayer's money on a medal for Rosa Parks, because it doesn't allocate for that in the constitution, so he offered to throw in his own money. Well, maybe he can throw his own money into the prison industrial complex, rather than spending mine (well, theoretically mine, the theoretical me that pays taxes). And I can't seem to find a response to the allegations of racism brought up in articles like this:http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=13022

I actually think his approach to abortion is much more subtle and positive than may be seen at first glance. I think it's easy to just lump him in with "republican pro-life" and not see what he really thinks about the issue.

Here he answers the question and actually has time to discuss it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

It's a part of this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA




This is quite wrong. He's quite against the prison system. One aspect of this is the fact that he's been railing against the War on Drugs for decades. He's quite against "federal crimes" that are not listed in the constitution. He's outspoken against Guantanamo and calls torture for what it is. He's against police state prison things like the national id card. He has submitted legislation to defund the DEA. He is against the Patriot Act (voted against it) and wants to close down the Dept of Homeland Security. Hell, for that matter he's even talked of closing down the FBI and the CIA.

So, in sum, he is quite against the prison system.

Lots of info here:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org

http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf




He simply did not write those articles that are quoted there. If you read any of his books or lots of his articles/speeches you'll be able to see that they are clearly not his.

Oh, and you got another suggestion for the /homepage/ link? :)

-Jeff

I will also point out that that above link is a forum link to a post in a blog which reproduces a usenet post from 1993! Credible sourcing, it is not.

If you actually read the entire article being quoted out of context, he is talking about how entitlement have poisoned the pot. He does not say black are inferior, he says that they have in general been brought being kept poor by being given just enough to stay alive, taught the reason they are poor are whites, and from the leaders of the community that they are entitled to more. He is claiming that this is causing crime and eventually the riots in LA and that other groups have been treated worse in LA and have not been trapped economically and have not rioted.

Where his logic is at a fallacy is his crime statistics. It's well known that laws are enforced unequally hard on blacks, putting on track for a life of crime, as the US prison system is about punishment, not reform. Also, most crime is black on black, not black on white, another point where he is wrong.

But he is not claiming that we should persecute blacks, he wants them to be escape this by giving them free markets and making them in charge of their own rise to success. Take a look at what Ice-T was saying during the same time period in "escape the killing fields" calling the hood an "economic prison" or what Bill Cosby is saying today.

Which article? The usenet post (that i maintain he didn't write)?

Actually, I have heard him say quotes on this. He says in particular the war on drugs unfairly targets blacks. Search youtube.

Too bad he's getting so much mis-attributed to him. That is a tactic though of course.

he's seen as dangerous, which is why it's cool to see him have visibility. He's not going to get elected, even he says so, what is interesting is what might follow.

He can't get elected because he might be a loose cannon, and not play ball with the invested power players.

Which is why "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
b-

it all depends who pwns the vote...

exactly

the only way I can sleep at night is knowing he's unelectable. I would probably vote for Hillary Clinton if it was between her and Ron Paul.

Where I'm from actions matter most, and Ron Paul, in his actions, is an anti-choice racist.

Even though he couldn't vote yes on a medal for Rosa Parks, because it's not in the consitution. He voted yes on a "partial-birth" abortion ban 4 times.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote ... can_id=296

Voted yes on banning federal research into abortion pills twice.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote ... can_id=296

Voted yes on a border fence
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote ... can_id=296

Very "subtle". Very "positive".

It's issues like this that make me give the usenet forum the benefit of the doubt. A person who thinks a wall between the US and Mexico is necessary is a racist. He tries to hide it behind clever slogans like "I won't vote for anything not specified in the constitution", but that's not true. He votes for things not in the constitution all the time. And even that ideology is reactionary. The constitution was written by backwards racist rich white men, and Ron Paul carries that torch beautifully.

I mean, seriously. As much as those quotes scare me, it is indeed conceivable that they didn't come from him. Also, Noldrin is right in one respect. Ron Paul is not the only racist, Bill Cosby is one of the biggest anti-black racists there is. But the fact that we can go to his own campaign site and find racist bullshit. He even wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. That level of ignorance is well above and beyond any other candidate.

This election is terrible, not only because when I look at the debates, I see a big gaggle of people with no sense, clawing one another to try to run this terrible country. Not only because it's got people like you, Jebba, who seem like otherwise sensible people trying desperately to defend reprehensible sexists and racists. But because it's a distraction and a spectacle, the likes of which have drawn us all in, and averted our attention from real tangible revolutionary action.

lol @ Hilary. I hope you are enjoying your New Years Eve tipple.

You'd rather have the US killing by the hundreds of thousands with a massive military intimidating the world? Hmm.



He's anti-choice--he wants to push it to the states. I assume you watched the video I sent you the URL to. What did you have to say about his points?



Yes. He believes life begins at conception, so he would be against that. When does life begin, anyway?



Completely in line with anarchists, I may note. Why should the state be researching /anything/? They'll likely just use the info to find new ways to kill. Also, if there were a "pro-life pill" he would be against federal funding of that too. It's the funding of "non-constitutional" things he's against, not what the subject matter is.

For my part I'm completely against the government funding this too.



He has actually said he thought the border fence was a stupid idea and would be ineffective. I don't remember what else was in that particular bill, but I have heard him address this directly and he was for the other things in the bill.



Well, that's just dumb. I mean, some ancient usenet post? Come on. We're talking about a guy that has a 20 year voting record, has his congressional weekly newsletter on his website (hundreds of issues), has written innumerable articles, given hundreds of speechs (hundreds of hours available on youtube), and written half a dozen books. In all that shit there has to be some dirt that is substantive. Using stupid usenet posts discredits you, not him. I mean, come on.



A decade from now will that suddenly be a good source. Get real.




Actually, like I said, he thinks the fence itself is a bad idea and won't work. I also don't think that shows racism, but nationalism. There is a difference. I find them both obnoxious. (You're talking to a guy who has been bordercamping and has a son that doesn't speak english...)



Such as?




Well, they were racist, but I wouldn't exactly call them backwards (considering the time).



As someone who has actually taken the time to read his writings extensively, I can tell you he didn't write them purely for stylistic reasons alone. Surely you can bring up something more credible than that? Can we drop that finally?

There's plenty of writings to pick thru here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org



Ya, that position definitely sucks, but citizenship itself is bullshit. You sound a lot more like a progressive than an anarchist though. Why do you care about federal funding and citizenship?



Oh trust me, I'm working all the time building stuff. But I do find Paul different. And not different in a Nadar/Kucinich kind of way. He's far far more intelligent. I really think he sees deeper into the functioning of the empire more than most, due to his years in direct opposition to it and also since he's been so /close/ to it. He's the only one I've heard in my lifetime that brings up monetary issues which are really at the core of the control. Democrats may say "oh raise minimum wage!" without thinking "why would it even need to increase?" They don't understand money, and thus their proscriptions create more problems than they solve. Paul is for /unlimited competition in currency/. In other words, goodbye dollar. I've never heard any other candidate, whether democrat, republican, green, or socialist calling for that.

Re: the spectacle, I've ignored it for years. I do delight in Ron Paul getting fox news reporters to say great things like "Governor Huckabee isn't selling fascism, it's just a Christmas message!". heh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4

-Jeff