GOP convention un-Americanly white

[Bart]

Another um, writer, bashing the Republican convention forbeing toowhite.Everybody has an opinion on the economy, and so forth, but It's the venom unleashed against whites in this article that is disgusting.UNAMERICAN? I hope we wake up one day!


[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09 /02/AR2008090202442.html[/url]


But the economy is not all; the GOP's last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power. If the election is about the economy, they're cooked -- and their silence this week on nearly all things economic means that they know it.

 

[White Shogun]

...the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future..

LOL @ this line, coming from the party that sponsored McCain-Kennedy! AND the first amnesty, too!

 

[Run Stuffing LB]

You look at the decripit, evil face of this reptile and you look right into the face of our enemy. Now being White is un-American. I'm sure this piece of dog dropping would love to start exterminating White people so we can hasten the glorious multi-cultural future.


I'm not of fan of Juan McCohen either, of course.

 

[Guest]

Harold Meyerson is probably just another member of the large segment of the jewish population that is actively rooting for the demise of european peoples.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

i didn't want to start a new thread for this, so i thought here might be appropriate. this news is certainly troubling and should be un-American...

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for president, has been said to resemble Gandalf, the magician from the movie version of "The Lord of the Rings."

Republican officials seemed to make Paul's supporters magically disappear during Wednesday night's roll call vote, in which the GOP convention officially nominated John McCain as the party's presidential candidate.

During the hour-and-a-half voting procedure, convention Secretary Jean Inman recorded each state's votes. Even though several states cast a portion of their votes for Ron Paul (among them Alaska, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia), none of those votes were repeated aloud by the secretary, and therefore they were not confirmed by the chair.

According to the Oklahoman newspaper, two delegates from Oklahoma also cast their ballots for Paul, but the microphone was cut off before their votes could be recorded.

full story here.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Funny how he lies and says the Republicans have no argument on the economy when 45 percent believe McCain is better on the economy compared to 48 percent for Obama in the latest poll.

And on the last part from JC, that is truly sickening just as Fox News treatment of Ron Paul was too. Dr. Paul is a brilliant man who is great on foreign policy. I am one of few that prefers McCain's platform overall on this site, but Paul had some interesting and brilliant ideas none the less. It is sickening how the cultural elites and mainstream media could try to destroy Dr. Paul by controlling the information. I feel bad for him b/c he was not treated fairly.

 

[jaxvid]

Ron Paul was driven out of the convention and treated like a leper by the GOP. It's typical to what they have done to Paul his whole political career. It says all you need to know about Republicans, they're scum.....oh but much better scum then the Democrats

so vote for them instead.

It's just like Don wrote, the whole thing is scripted like a TV drama, it's a big farce played out to appease the sheeple. ENJOY!!!

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I happen to think McCain is better on things like the economy and environment than Dr. Paul. But Paul is better on Foreign policy and probably better at fighting corruption, he just happens to be too economically libertarian for me.

Still the way the media treated him disgusted me. Ron Paul is a great American who deserved respect. I have little respect for Fox News after the way they treated Dr. Paul.

BTW, I was surprised with Dr. Paul's libertarian platform that he was pro-life. I was glad to hear that. Paul might be better at challenging the ACLU's secular humanist policies of things like abortion on demand and freedom to produce "extreme" indecent material than I thought. I way prefer Paul over Obama. When the media engages in propaganda against a politician as they did against Paul, it is often b/c he tells the truth and too couragous in challenging the cultural Marxists and PC police.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

You look at the decripit, evil face of this reptile and you look right into the face of our enemy. Now being White is un-American. I'm sure this piece of dog dropping would love to start exterminating White people so we can hasten the glorious multi-cultural future.


I'm not of fan of Juan McCohen either, of course.

Maybe Mayerson hates the white race b/c he is way uglier than just about all white people, or Jewish people, as he is almost certainly Jewish and even Euro Jews don't usually consider themselves white

. Mr. Horse face is pathetic. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Guest]

TJR, Dr. Paul's anti-abortion stance is definitely not party-line Libertarian, which shows him for the paleo-conservative Republican that he is. He also just recently passed on the chance to endorse or run with Bob Barr, which should tell you something about his opinion of the Libertarian Party.Their stance on open borders is also dumb, which Dr. Paul also rejected.

Dr. Paul is an old-school Goldwater Republican, greatly to be admired.

However, even with all the money he got and all the signs his followers put up, he was never able to break out of the low single digits in any primary. That was not caused by the media. It was caused because of his anti-war stance. The average Republican just don't want to hear about quitting a war in mid-fight.

 

[Don Wassall]

Dr. Paul is an old-school Goldwater Republican, greatly to be admired.

However, even with all the money he got and all the signs his followers put up, he was never able to break out of the low single digits in any primary. That was not caused by the media. It was caused because of his anti-war stance. The average Republican just don't want to hear about quitting a war in mid-fight.

Wrong! Here are some of the percentages Ron Paul received in the primaries that were above "low single digits":


Alaska: 17% (McCain received 16%)


Colorado: 8%


District of Columbia: 8%


Idaho: 24%


Indiana: 8%


Iowa: 10%


Kansas: 11%


Maine: 19% (McCain 21%)


Minnesota: 16%


Montana: 25% (McCain 22%)


Nebraska: 13%


Nevada: 14% (McCain 13%)


New Hampshire: 8%


New Mexico: 14%


North Dakota: 21% (McCain 23%)


Oregon: 15%


Pennsylvania: 16%


South Dakota: 17%


Washington: 22%


Middle America has always had a strong anti-war streak. The powerful America First movement of the 1930s was a great example. 80 percent of Americans opposed getting involved in WWII. Then came Pearl Harbor and everyone rallied round the flag, just as the "new Pearl Harbor" so desired by the neo-cons magically happened and had the same effect. Even so, after seven years of a war McCain wants to go on for a century, there are many traditional conservatives out there not represented by the GOP. As a self-professed libertarian turned "paleo-conservative" I'm surprised at how strongly you support McCain's warmongering and also believe that he is somehow going to be different as president than he was as your Senator. I would think a paleo-conservative would be less naive.

 

[Kaptain]

Boy, a lot of posters seem to really love Ron Paul but magically like McCain a little better. That McCain fellow must one special individual to be able to pull away so many Ron Paul supporters!

Sometimes its because of his anti-war policy and sometimes its because McCain is such an economic genius. Who could argue with that?

I just love those vague statements about how "I love Ron Paul but for some vague unidentified reason I like McCain better." Needless to say I've heard that "I love Ron Paul but....." line too many times to believe it. Heck, they actually dispise him so much they can't even admit that he ever got more than "low single digit" support.

 

[sport historian]

After McCain won the GOP South Carolina primary, I read that McCain's voters supported him because he was a "war hero," along with his name recognition. They had no idea of McCain's open borders stance.

In one of Samuel Francis' last Chronicles essays, he wrote about this being typical of self-described "conservative" voters. People who vote Republican think things "are just fine."

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

i support Ron Paul, because he supports the Constitution. any other candidate that would do the same, and walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, would also get my vote.

it's not about the man. it's about the message. and Dr. Paul has the right message.

link to Ron Paul's speech yesterday about the current lesser-of-two-evils voting choice debacle.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I do like Some things about Dr. Paul, but don't know enough about him really. What was Paul's position on how to bring the troops home? McCain ticked me off when he said we might have to stay there for the next decade. The now democratic Iraqi government doesn't even want us there much longer, so how can McCain go against them? Hopefully he will change his position now since the Iraqis have spoken.

Obama's stance on how to bring the troops home by talking to the Generals and working with the Iraqi government with the goal of having all out in 16 months to 2 years seems about right. Then we could try to get a UN peace keeping force to help the Iraqis if they wanted it. The UN peace keeping force wouldn't have much effect, but it would just be the message that the world supports a democratic Iraq. I can't stand Obama, but he seems pretty good on the Iraq War.

Obama is a little too far to the left economically for me and McCain has shifted to the right. It will be very hard to control spending with everything going on enough to balance the budget without raising taxes a little or by my prefered way by creating new higher brackets so we don't hurt small businesses when raising taxes. We are enormously in debt and the dollar has been tanking.

There is way too much corruption in government right now. That's another thing I did like about Dr. Paul, he would fight corruption with passion even more than McCain IMO, but overall I still prefer McCain.

Edited to Add: McCain would definitely be better on the environment than Dr. Paul. I am passionate about the environment. A completely libertarian lassez Fair (don't know how to spell it) economic policy could destroy the environment and hurt struggling poor people. What is Paul's position on minimum wage? I guess I could look this stuff up myself, it might not be that hard to find.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Guest]

Boy, a lot of posters seem to really love Ron Paul but magically like McCain a little better. That McCain fellow must one special individual to be able to pull away so many Ron Paul supporters!

Sometimes its because of his anti-war policy and sometimes its because McCain is such an economic genius. Who could argue with that?

I just love those vague statements about how "I love Ron Paul but for some vague unidentified reason I like McCain better." Needless to say I've heard that "I love Ron Paul but....." line too many times to believe it. Heck, they actually dispise him so much they can't even admit that he ever got more than "low single digit" support.

K.P., I love Ron Paul, but he is no longer in the race. McCain is. I would have no reservations supporting Dr. Paul as President, but that just isn't happening.

Don, if I'm not mistaken, most of those high percentages came after everyone else had dropped out of the race, didn't they? I stopped following after Super Tuesday-ish, I just know he was not polling well before that.

The total vote number was also lower after McCain wrapped up the race. Thus, the RP vote shows higher as a percentage, because less total votes were cast.Showing that RP cracked the teens in a bunch of low popupulation states after McCain already wrapped up the nomination and no one else was even running, does not really demonstrate much. Edited by: 89Glory

 

[Don Wassall]

Don, if I'm not mistaken, most of those high percentages came after everyone else had dropped out of the race, didn't they? I stopped following after Super Tuesday-ish, I just know he was not polling well before that.

The total vote number was also lower after McCain wrapped up the race. Thus, the RP vote shows higher as a percentage, because less total votes were cast.Showing that RP cracked the teens in a bunch of low popupulation states after McCain already wrapped up the nomination and no one else was even running, does not really demonstrate much.

Really interesting style of presenting your case. First I show that your blanket assertion that Paul never got above low single digits in any primary was way, way off.


Then above, you ask if his manysolid results came "after everyone else had dropped out." And then in the very next paragraph, after admitting you really didn't follow the primaries, you decide to answer your own question anyway by once again making a sweeping declarative statement: "Showing that RP cracked the teens in a bunch of low popupulation [sic] states after McCain already wrapped up the nomination and no one else was even running. . ." Gee, I don't know if that's the case or not, but I'll just claim it is anyway.


Wrong again!


Here's the number of candidates that were on the ballot in those states, including Paul. When the number is 4, it's almost always McCain, Huckabee and Romney along with Paul, not "fringe" or unknown candidates. When it's more than 4 it includes Giuliani, Thompson and Duncan Hunter.


Alaska - 4 + uncommitted


Colorado - 4


D.C. - 4


Idaho - 2 + uncommitted


Indiana - 4


Kansas - 4


Maine - 7 + undecided


Minnesota - 5


Montana - 4


Nebraska - 2


Nevada - 7


New Hampshire - 7


New Mexico - 2


North Dakota - 4


Oregon - 2


Pennsylvania - 3


South Dakota - 4 + uncommitted


Washington - 4


Your credibility is zero, which is even lower than "low single digits."

 

[DixieDestroyer]

...the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future..

LOL @ this line, coming from the party that sponsored McCain-Kennedy! AND the first amnesty, too!

...and NAFTA, CAFTA, Empire Building & Corporate Welfare on the taxpayer (fiat) dollar!

P.S. - Dr.Ron Paul is without a doubt "Founding Father" material on par with Jefferson, Adams & Henry. The man's platform embodies everything our Constitutional Republic should be! Dr.Paul is a great American patriot who nearly stands alone (on "Crapitol sHill") against the legion of Globalist puppets. No doubt the controlled "mainstream" media propaganda outlets (like "Faux" News) buried this rare man of character (in DC). I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin because his platform is nearly identical to Dr.Paul's...100% freedom!

 

[Guest]

Sorry, Don, you're blowing your own credibility, because your numbers don't tell the story. Every state you cited as a high % early voter for Dr Paul (Montana, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska, Minnesota, Washington) was a caucus not a primary, in a tiny population state. His big numbers in primaries (low- to mid-teens in Idaho, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New Mexico, and Nebraska) came as I said, in late May and June when it was just him and McCain.

Here is what I was talking about, state and % voting for Paul, all before or on Super Tuesday. As you can see, my generalization does apply:

Michigan6.3%
South Carolina3.7%
Florida3.2%
Alabama2.7%
Connecticut4.1%
Delaware4.2%
Georgia2.9%
Illinois5.0%
Massachusetts2.7%
Missouri4.5%
California4.3%
Arkansas4.8%
New Jersey4.8%
New York6.2%
Oklahoma3.3%
Tennessee5.6%
Utah3.0%
West Virginia5.0%

 

[White Shogun]

Ron Paul should not have dropped out in my opinion.

The Constitution Party was just now able to get registered as a write-in candidate on the Texas ballot. They're concerned that the polling places will not do as they are supposed to and have available to voters, lists of eligible write-in candidates.

They indicate there were some shenanigans even getting listed as a write-in candidate, the Texas registrar's office saying they 'lost the paperwork.' Only by having documented proof that they filed timely allowed the CP to be listed as a write-in.

 

[Don Wassall]

The numbers I provided were from PRIMARIES.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914/ States like New Hampshire and Nevada were early in the process. States like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Minnesota are not "low population" states. And besides that's irrelevant. You made a flat out claim, it wasn't qualified by population or time of primary.


Here are the facts. First you wrote that Ron Paul "was never able to break out of the low single digits in any primary." I provided 19 primaries where he got either in the high single digits or into two digits. You were flat out wrong, period. You made no qualifications, no generalizations. The statement you made was wrong.


Second, you wrote, after I proved you wrong:"RP cracked the teens in a bunch of low popupulation states after McCain already wrapped up the nomination and no one else was even running," and this only after first saying you didn't know if this was the case or not. I provided numerous states where Paul was on the ballot with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and others. Paul, Romney and Huckabee continued running long after it appeared McCain was going to win the nomination.


You respond by listing states where Paul didn't do as welland then you have the balls to claim that the evidence I provideddidn't prove you wrongand that your "generalization" is accurate?


You made two flat out claims, not "generalizations." They were both wrong. Period. Don't tell me I don't have "credibility" by proving you wrong. You've really pissed me off now, you liar and deceiver. If you want to continue to argue like a forked tongue snake, go elsewhere *******.

 

[Guest]

What am I lying about? I never denied I wrote what I wrote.In specifics, I was wrong, great point, you win, but after that I was defining where I got my impression. Your the one who said I lacked credibility, which is crap. I showed a long list of single digit performances, which is where I got my impression from. Good for Ron for pulling the teens in a bunch of small state caucuses and late-state primaries when everyone else had dropped out, even if they were "still on the ballot" after they conceded. Try to spin it however you want, Paul did sh*tty.

I am caste football fan and contributor, and I don't care if you are CF God himself, if you can't stand a political conversation without using profanity and personal attacks, you need to grow up.

 

[Don Wassall]

Oh I'm grown up all right, which is why I enjoy civil discussions between white men who value integrity.


Yes, you did deny what you wrote.You kept adding to your original wrong assertion and then accused me of lacking credibility for calling you on it. That's the m.o. of you and your buddy Kukulcan -- ignore, distort, deceive, put up straw men to knock down, and then make accusations at those who call you on your methods.


I can't stand that type of "arguing" and don't participate on boards that have people that specialize in it. It's impossible to discuss anything because words are always twisted around, the subject is changed, things are taken out of context, etc., etc. You were caught in a blatant mis-statement of fact but instead of acknowledging it you just kept changing and distorting what youwrote and then accused me of being theone who was wrong.Having a "discussion" with you andKukulcan is like trying tohave a conversationwith someone whocan'tspeak English.


IMO you're a troll, and though there's not much in life I can control, on this little piece of cyberspace I havesome influence on what I want this site to stand for and the way I want our message to be presented. You've claimed to be a paleo-conservative and a former libertarian, but in reality you've been a disingenuous promoter of the neo-con, GOP party line. What should be apassionate but civiland respectful discussion between those who urge voting for McCain as the "lesser of two evils" and those who cannot in good conscience vote any longer for the GOP at the national level is being used in ways detrimental to Caste Football.


Let me make it clear -- there is no "political litmus test" here. We have a wide variety of political views expressed, which is natural and which is why I've always let Caste Football develop its own supporter base free from my own political beliefs and my other websites, my monthly political newspaper, political organization, etc.It would certainly help mein paying for this free site and being able to put more time into it and help me pay some bills if some folks here thought enough of my ideas and writings to support the other things I do, butI've been in this a long time and know that trying to get strong-minded white men to work together toward a common goal is as tough as trying to herd cats.


Everyone here is welcome to disagree on politics and anything else, and to disagree with me and anyone else. I go out of my way to let everyone have their say as long as they seem to basically be on the same page. The issue is how one presents viewpoints. Read the posting guidelines and read the posts. There is a right way and a wrong way to be part of this community. I believe in white men acting and expressing themselves in ways honorable to our race and heritage, which includes honesty in all dealings. Those that twist meanings and ideas and sow dissension are not wanted here.


Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[Kaptain]

He was a troll from the get go. One lie after another. You gave him plenty of time. He was as much a CF fan as he was a Paul fan. Goodbye Glory89 and good ridance.

 

[guest301]

I did think that 89 Glory posted well in regards to sports and enjoyed his knowledge of basketball and the posting he did on the Olympics. However he did get carried away on the politics and the way he presented himself and talked to others and he paid the ultimate price. I am a McCain/Palin supporter(sort of) and everybody knows that here but I didn't go out of my way to insult anybody here who disagrees with me.