Install this theme

Posts tagged: ows

ronpaulsucks:

ARTICLE:
Are you kidding me with this guy?

It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of  Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and  the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all  that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites  dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War  and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I  laugh bitterly.  When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the  Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder  if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has  managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end  of the political spectrum, and everything in between.  Everyone from  Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront  are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not  necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.
Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and  the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.”  Never  mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people  and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.”  What Paul  means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.” 
Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a  Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in  transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the  quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty”  would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom.  A  detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since,  as we all know, the South started it.
Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary.  Funny, that.
MORE:
http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/01/21/shorter-ron-paul-the-south-will-rise-again/

ronpaulsucks:

ARTICLE:

Are you kidding me with this guy?

It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites dragged to this country and enslaved.

So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I laugh bitterly.  When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.

Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end of the political spectrum, and everything in between.  Everyone from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)

I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.

Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.”  Never mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.”  What Paul means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.” 

Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty” would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom.  A detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since, as we all know, the South started it.

Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary.  Funny, that.

MORE:

http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/01/21/shorter-ron-paul-the-south-will-rise-again/

Huffington Post: LGBT and pro-LGBT voters- “A vote for a candidate like Ron Paul is a vote for someone who opposes their rights.”

ronpaulsucks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-becker/lgbts-for-ron-paul-huh_b_1197057.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+(Politics+on+The+Huffington+Post)

I must confess that I’m truly baffled by the level of support I’m seeing among my friends for presidential candidate Ron Paul. While the number of Paul fans in my circles is relatively small, he nonetheless enjoys the highest level of support from my LGBT-identified and equality-supporting friends out of all the non-LGBT-friendly candidates. In addition, the Ron Paul supporters I know tend to be passionately, often blindly, devoted to their candidate, steamrolling over any criticisms of Paul, no matter how legitimate, and simply dismissing out of hand those they cannot out-argue.

To many people, Ron Paul’s sound bites are very appealing. Smaller government. Individual liberty. Legalization of marijuana and other drugs. (Yes, I think this has a lot to do with the support Paul receives, especially among young people and college students.) Unfortunately, it’s been my experience that most supporters of Ron Paul stop there and either don’t dig any further or ignore the digging done by others. This alarms me, because Ron Paul’s record is very, very anti-gay.

On his best days, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” position regarding marriage equality. On his worst, he has specifically bragged about his efforts to obstruct and attack LGBT people’s civil rights and gone out of his way to slander and mischaracterize LGBT people.

Setting aside the generally disturbing deployment of the “states’ rights” argument at all, given its shameful history as a justifier of slavery and Jim Crow laws in this country, I’d like to ask Mr. Paul (as well as those who profess to support both Ron Paul and LGBT equality) why LGBT couples should be the only Americans whose marriages are subject to the “states’ rights” standard. Why should only LGBT people, but not straight people, have to seek the approval of our state legislatures and/or citizenry in order to marry the people we love? Why should our marriages be the only ones that dissolve when we cross state lines? And why is this an acceptable state of affairs, especially given the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all American citizens?

“Yeah,” many of my Paul-supporting friends will say, “but that’s just your opinion.”

This brings up another point: the difference between opinion and fact. Maybe it’s just me, but in this era of false equivalency memes, it appears as though this distinction is being increasingly overlooked. A fact is something that is empirically true and can be supported by evidence, while an opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence, usually taking the form of a subjective statement that can be emotionally based or result from a person’s individual interpretation of a fact.

  • FACT: Ron Paul’s presidential campaign issued a flyer that boasted about the candidate’s efforts to introduce legislation that would remove challenges to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act from the federal court system.
  • FACT: Ron Paul’s Iowa state director is Mike Heath, a long-term Christian-right activist who formerly served as the board chairman of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known as “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”
  • FACT: Ron Paul has a long history of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.
  • FACT: As state above, Ron Paul supports the so-called “states’ rights” approach to marriage, but interestingly, only for LGBT couples.
  • FACT: Ron Paul said, “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in another state.”
  • FACT: Ron Paul opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers.

Based on the above examples and so many others, there is no way one can honestly characterize Ron Paul’s past statements and record as anything other than anti-gay. Of course, LGBTs and supporters of LGBT equality, like all voters, can and should vote for whomever they choose. I am neither disputing that right nor attempting in any way to tell anyone how to vote. What I am saying, however, is that LGBT and pro-LGBT voters should at least acknowledge that a vote for a candidate like Ron Paul is a vote for someone who opposes their rights. 

I’m very concerned about this very divisive rhetoric the president is using when he continues to talk about ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ and this thing that I think is really contrary to the principles that I mentioned, as far as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Representative Allen West (FL-R)

GOP 2012: Equality and Fairness are Anti-American

-Joe

(via stfuconservatives)
‘It’s a Food Product, Essentially’: Fox News Starts Spinning Pepper Spray Cops

stfuconservatives:

squeetothegee:

abaldwin360:

gawker.com

“I don’t think we have the right to Monday-morning quarterback the police,” Bill O’Reilly said tonight, discussing the appalling use of pepper spray by UC Davis police on Friday. No, God forbid we Monday-morning quarterback the police, especially, as O’Reilly continued, “at a place like UC Davis, which is a fairly liberal campus.”

Indeed: what right do we have to think that Lt. John Pike should probably not have indifferently dusted peacefully sitting protesters with pepper spray from only a few feet away? And, gosh, even if we were going to Monday-morning quarterback the police, shouldn’t we remember, as Megyn Kelly tells O’Reilly, that pepper spray is “a food product, essentially”? I mean, Kelly and O’Reilly aren’t saying the cops did the right thing! God, no! They’re just saying, hey, what right do we have to judge a cop for spraying a simple food product on a bunch of liberal college kids’ faces?

[SOURCE]

A food product.  

Okay, it may have been unpleasant when sriracha splashed into my eyes the other day, but I will never put pepper spray on my pizza. Doesn’t go both ways there.

fearandwar:

They’re locking up citizens in their own houses. Jesus Christ. Is that even legal?

fearandwar:

They’re locking up citizens in their own houses. Jesus Christ. Is that even legal?

Another picture of Stallone Cop serving and protecting the shit out of unarmed protesters.

Another picture of Stallone Cop serving and protecting the shit out of unarmed protesters.

glossylalia:

so-treu:

karnythia:

So this crossed my Twitter stream a few minutes ago.

@tjholmes Heard NY protester say OWS “much grander than Civil Rights Movement” b/c it deals w/more than just 1 race. Agree?

I’m going to need some of y’all to come get your people. Why is there supposed to be a competition between movements in the first place? What kind of backwards ass knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement do these children have if they think it was only about black people? For that matter as they co-opt the words & tactics of the CRM, why aren’t they honoring the people who were involved? Why all the insistence that they’re doing this for everyone while ignoring the needs of everyone? I stopped by Occupy Chicago this last week & it was not about inner city POC or even poor whites. It was primarily middle class suburban white kids playing at being radical & not understanding that the people they claimed to be helping were capable of agency, much less respecting that agency. If you’re treating all the marginalized people like children who need you to parent them through protesting? You’re failing miserably at being progressive & are just another imperialist with a different version of Manifest Destiny & White Man’s Burden pouring out of your mouth.

seriously, the past 24 hours has given me so very many reasons to place ows on permanent side-eye status.

What kind of backwards-ass paternalist logic is this?!

White kids, come get your cousin.

MySpace Tracker