Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Richard Brodie
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee (this month) on Ron Paul Graphs
will1782, "Radical Islam" is a bad synonym for "violent Islam." "Radical" and "root" have the same etymological derivation. "Radical" is an honorable concept. It just means "fundamental," as in "getting to the root of the problem." If you believe that violent jihadists have perverted Islam, then they have gotten away from the root teachings, and the "radical" Islamists are the peace-loving, tolerant ones.
There is a deliberate linguistic obfuscation going on here, which is being used to destroy our liberties. A wicked piece of thought control legislation has now passed in Congress, and it is entitled "Violent radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." "Radical" and "violent" are being synonymized, so that a radical movement such as the Ron Paul Revolution, which seeks to identify the root causes of our national economic and foreign policy problems, can be branded as "terrorist facilitating", and those who (in the words of the bill) "adopt" such ideas (i.e. who choose to believe in them) can be accused of being terrorists just for entertaining thoughts.
You don't believe me? Read the God damned thing! The real Domestic "Tear"rorists are the 400+ members of Congress who voted "Yes" on this abominable bill. They are the ones who "Tear" up the Bill of Rights and do legislative Violence to the Constitution.
There is a deliberate linguistic obfuscation going on here, which is being used to destroy our liberties. A wicked piece of thought control legislation has now passed in Congress, and it is entitled "Violent radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." "Radical" and "violent" are being synonymized, so that a radical movement such as the Ron Paul Revolution, which seeks to identify the root causes of our national economic and foreign policy problems, can be branded as "terrorist facilitating", and those who (in the words of the bill) "adopt" such ideas (i.e. who choose to believe in them) can be accused of being terrorists just for entertaining thoughts.
You don't believe me? Read the God damned thing! The real Domestic "Tear"rorists are the 400+ members of Congress who voted "Yes" on this abominable bill. They are the ones who "Tear" up the Bill of Rights and do legislative Violence to the Constitution.
1 year ago
in Open letter to Dr. Ron Paul on It looks Obvious
Rogel,
What alternative do you want for 2008? Your continuing to flog this dead horse reminds me of something Huckabee said to Ron Paul in one of the early debates. While trying to justify not leaving Iraq without "victory" even though we may have started the war for the wrong reasons, he said something to the effect that he would rather go down fighting than lose his honor by retreating. You seem to be content to have the "revolution" fail because Ron Paul might not pass one litmus test that you find so important.
I can understand, since you're Jewish, why you would be highly sensitive about race issues. But I also find it somewhat disingenuous (and bear with me here because I'm just one of your stupid goyim :) that you can be so condemnatory towards a White Nationalist like myself, who yearns to have a secure homeland for MY own race, when YOUR own race has been able to achieve such a goal for itself in the racially exclusive nation of Israel. Is it because this privilege of being able to live amongst one's own kind is reserved exclusively for God's chosen?
It has been observed that a Ron Paul rally is the one place you can see skinheads working alongside blacks for a common purpose (after the campaign is over, there will be plenty of time for us to get back to the serious business of hating each other :) Paul is the ultimate Uniter, because he holds forth the promise of a country where people of every conceivable kind of belief will enjoy the freedom of thought (to hold those beliefs), the freedom of speech (to publicly advocate those beliefs), and the freedom of association (to congregate with like-minded folks, in a segregated kind of a way :)
Paul would usher in an new era of harmony that comes with true diversity, by eliminating the resentments and hatreds that inevitably arise when different factions must, at a federal level, contend with each other in an all or nothing struggle to get a single agenda imposed (hopefully one's own) on the entire nation (e.g. segregation vs. integration). Instead of this ugly picture, a Paul Administration would allow for a variegated, multi-"colored", state by state smörgåsbord of preferences to develop that offers each individual the opportunity to find a congenial place were he can best realize his right to the pursuit of happiness.
What alternative do you want for 2008? Your continuing to flog this dead horse reminds me of something Huckabee said to Ron Paul in one of the early debates. While trying to justify not leaving Iraq without "victory" even though we may have started the war for the wrong reasons, he said something to the effect that he would rather go down fighting than lose his honor by retreating. You seem to be content to have the "revolution" fail because Ron Paul might not pass one litmus test that you find so important.
I can understand, since you're Jewish, why you would be highly sensitive about race issues. But I also find it somewhat disingenuous (and bear with me here because I'm just one of your stupid goyim :) that you can be so condemnatory towards a White Nationalist like myself, who yearns to have a secure homeland for MY own race, when YOUR own race has been able to achieve such a goal for itself in the racially exclusive nation of Israel. Is it because this privilege of being able to live amongst one's own kind is reserved exclusively for God's chosen?
It has been observed that a Ron Paul rally is the one place you can see skinheads working alongside blacks for a common purpose (after the campaign is over, there will be plenty of time for us to get back to the serious business of hating each other :) Paul is the ultimate Uniter, because he holds forth the promise of a country where people of every conceivable kind of belief will enjoy the freedom of thought (to hold those beliefs), the freedom of speech (to publicly advocate those beliefs), and the freedom of association (to congregate with like-minded folks, in a segregated kind of a way :)
Paul would usher in an new era of harmony that comes with true diversity, by eliminating the resentments and hatreds that inevitably arise when different factions must, at a federal level, contend with each other in an all or nothing struggle to get a single agenda imposed (hopefully one's own) on the entire nation (e.g. segregation vs. integration). Instead of this ugly picture, a Paul Administration would allow for a variegated, multi-"colored", state by state smörgåsbord of preferences to develop that offers each individual the opportunity to find a congenial place were he can best realize his right to the pursuit of happiness.
1 year ago
in Open letter to Dr. Ron Paul on It looks Obvious
I guess every revolution has its Judases and its Benedict Arnolds. This is obviously a hit piece by someone who admits to agreeing with almost nothing Ron Paul stands for, and can only string out a long list of disagreements. But his most fundamental disagreement is with Ron Paul's advocacy of the First Amendment, and specifically the part that talks about Congress (government) being neutral with regard to establishments of religion (belief systems.)
One's position on race is a matter of personal belief, and it spans the spectrum from those at one extreme who deny the very existence of race (race truthers), to those moderates who believe in a multiculturalist elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation (velvet genocide), to those other moderates, the race nationalists (white pride, black Nation of Islam pride, Chicano pride, etc.) who advocate for identity preservation by the avoidance of racial mixing (separatists), all the way to those at the other extreme who believe that one race should rule over other races (supremacists.) Ron Paul realizes that it is not the place of a President (or a presidential aspirant) to use his position to come out, as a representative of the government, in a non-neutral way either for or against any individual or group at any point along this or any other belief system spectrum, unless they exhibit violence against other individuals or groups thereby disrespecting their rights.
Rogel advocates that Ron Paul should ignore the Constitution and start yet another war in addition to the wars on drugs, on terror, on poverty, on illiteracy, etc., namely a war on racism.
One's position on race is a matter of personal belief, and it spans the spectrum from those at one extreme who deny the very existence of race (race truthers), to those moderates who believe in a multiculturalist elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation (velvet genocide), to those other moderates, the race nationalists (white pride, black Nation of Islam pride, Chicano pride, etc.) who advocate for identity preservation by the avoidance of racial mixing (separatists), all the way to those at the other extreme who believe that one race should rule over other races (supremacists.) Ron Paul realizes that it is not the place of a President (or a presidential aspirant) to use his position to come out, as a representative of the government, in a non-neutral way either for or against any individual or group at any point along this or any other belief system spectrum, unless they exhibit violence against other individuals or groups thereby disrespecting their rights.
Rogel advocates that Ron Paul should ignore the Constitution and start yet another war in addition to the wars on drugs, on terror, on poverty, on illiteracy, etc., namely a war on racism.
