Views from other people on various issues:
Ron Paul says he didn't write those racist screeds, didn't know about them, and disavows them. But this, like his statments regarding civil rights, leave some questions in my mind. Should he have allowed such things to be published in his name, in his newletter? How did he not know about racist tripe published in his name over a period of some years (apparently from some point in the 1980s --90s)? WHEN did he learn of this, and when did he disavow this junk? I wouldn't surprise me that the Paul's GOP adversaries are trying to discredit him with this, as no doubt with the Democrats should he be nominated as the Republican presidential candidate. But if he allowed stuff to be published in his name without repudiating it (and maybe firing the persons who wrote it), he left himself open for that attack
In the popular lingo of Black America, and "oreo" was not a biracial person. An oreo is a Black person who, like an oreo cookie, is Black on the outside and whiite on the inside. White on the inside means largely being wholly committed to white racial values, white aesthetics, and often even wishing to be white. As for progressives defending the president on his policies, some do and others don't. Some support his health care package even if they don't think it goes far enough. Some progressives--e.g. , Cornel West and Chris Hedges--deny that Obama is a progressive, and argue that he is in the hip pocket or corporate power. But they also charge that much of the criticism of Obama from the RIGHT is racist, or motivated by racism. While I am also severely critical of Obama from a PROGRESSIVE perspective, I think that much of the anti-Obama opposition from th Right is racist, and sometimes not even thinly veiled racism.
It is precisely his attitude toward social rights that is unclear to me, and which makes me less receptive to Ron Paul than are some fellow progressives. Frankly, I don't know if he's a racist. He does not appear to be, though those clearly racist writings under his name makes me pause. But from what I read (and heard in one interview) regarding his attitude towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964--without which I'd have pretty much the same life my father and grandfather did--he was very weak. It's not that he argues or presumes like the typical racist that Blacks are an inferior race, or that racial caste and segregation ought to have continued (or be restored full blast). It's the attitude, perhaps integral to right wing libertarianism, that the government can't intervene to end discrimination or segregation so long as it is practiced in the private sphere. Apparently, it would be ok for Paul for the Civil Rights act of 1964 to be used against segregation and discrimination at the FEDERAL level. But in a capitalist society, especially one like the USA, the private sphere is dominant. Most employers are in the private sector. Most businesses are private. In short, on a day to day basis I actually have more interaction with private, non-Federal parts of society--a sphere that would apparently be untouched by the Civil Rights Act on Ron Paul's view of things. For example, I might not have obtained by doctoral degree in philosophy from Vanderbilt University, a private institution if Ron Paul's constriction of the range of the Civil Rights Act had been enforced. Given his emphasis on the constricting of the national government, I can't see how he could begin to stomach universal health care. I fear what would happen with social security, medicare, etc. The Federal hands off approach may allow Paul to adopt relatively sane policies in some areas: reduction of militarism (which every progressive desires as well), probably de-criminalization of drugs (which many of us also want) which would also mean a decrease in massive incarceration. But I am uncertain about Ron Paul's stand on other social issues
JenQueen8 hours ago
4 hours ago
whowantz2kno6 hours ago
Highest308 hours ago
But the Panthers bombing pig stys? No. & any such claims, that such occurred, would be categorically false. However, had such occurred (which again, it did not), given the state-sponsored terrorism that police departments across the country were subjecting Black communities, in general, given the campaign of harrasment, suppression, & criminal brutality, that law enforcement agencies were subjecting the Panthers, in particular, such would mark such bombing as a self-defense tactic
I've had lunches, afternoon discussions, & debates, w/ Bobby Seale, himself. So u'll forgive me if I find ur reading of ONE Panther biography, & pronouncements of my being, "uneducated about...the Black Panthers...in the 1960s," both amusing & unimpressive. Now granted, it's been a few years since I've perused, "A Taste of Power," nevertheless, I recall no claims by Brown regarding Panthers bombing police stations--the Weather Underground, the SLA (both white radical groups) Yes
Listen u sad halfwit, I've read a"A Taste of Power" by Elaine Brown, as well as "Seize the Time" by Bobby Seale, and "Revolutionary Suicide" & "To Die for the People" by Huey Newon, and "Assata" by Assata Shakur, and "This Side of Glory" by David Hilliard along w/ countless other Panther biographies & histories. Not 2 mention that both of my parents, along w/ several of my aunts, uncles, & cousins are all former Panthers. I grew up in the movent, not just reading it, u dumb a______!
Bobby Seale a domestic terrorist? *smh* Guy, do us all a favor, if u don't know what u're talking about, (& u CLEARLY don't) if u can't differentiate between ppl organizing 2 defend themselves, & their communities, against state sponsored injustice, oppression, & brutality--or ur racist nature makes u lack the integrity, 2 acknowledge the difference bet. the 2--then please, just shut the fuck up. U're adding NOTHING of value 2 the discussion.