Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negatives

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

bruh

I have not said anything about Obama in a minute (even though I could have....but why bother?).

Like I have said to you 1 million times before...I vote for antiwar candidates who are upfront about destructive US foreign policy.

That is what concerns me.

If I really wanted to...I could deconstruct this article....but Im like ...there is nothing new in the article to discuss.

Shit...I'm trying to get citizenship of a different country so that I could drop the US citizenship.

Yall can have US politics

Uh huh.

 

[dmx]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

I think this is all semantics bruh. I don't think Paul is a "progressive" (and to be fair he's never made the case that he was... he's always been consistently Libertarian). Having said that he does take stances on issues of massive import which are shared by most progressives (Foreign Policy, Drug War, Corporate Cronyism etc etc).. so in a very real sense he is more "progressive" than most politicians on the hill. Am I saying that this excuses or makes up for his many absurd non-progressive positions? Not at all. This is all ideological(ie hypothetical) anyhow as you're 100% right about his actual record as a Congressman. Paul is an ideologue first and foremost.

The truth is he's not a Libertarian either. You see, because we don't read in the US. We have it backwards. Here Libertarians are consider to be on the Right, but the truth is they're on the Left. But, there's no liberty in the Republic. By definition, the Republic is supposed to tell you what to do. So, for a guy who's a Lutheran and a Republican to pretend he's cares about your rights, well, he's pretending.

Ron Paul doesn't take a stance on cronyism, etc. He takes a Von Mises stance which is to sit on your ass, and it will sort itself out. In other words, his plan is NO PLAN. Americans can hear what they want, but if you study Von Mises, you'd know that he's full of shit. Hell, people didn't listen to Von Mises either. Why? Because when people begin to sit on their asses, they have a tendency to stay there and let shit go to hell before they fix it. On a larger scale, "let shit go to hell" translates to "death" as a solution to the world's problems. This is how fascists fix their problems.

Sharkbait, what you (and others) "should be" discovering is the true meaning of the word "backward".

 

[sharkbait28]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

The truth is he's not a Libertarian either. You see, because we don't read in the US. We have it backwards. Here Libertarians are consider to be on the Right, but the truth is they're on the Left. But, there's no liberty in the Republic. By definition, the Republic is supposed to tell you what to do. So, for a guy who's a Lutheran and a Republican to pretend he's cares about your rights, well, he's pretending.

Ron Paul doesn't take a stance on cronyism, etc. He takes a Von Mises stance which is to sit on your ass, and it will sort itself out. In other words, his plan is NO PLAN. Americans can hear what they want, but if you study Von Mises, you'd know that he's full of shit. Hell, people didn't listen to Von Mises either. Why? Because when people begin to sit on their asses, they have a tendency to stay there and let shit go to hell before they fix it. On a larger scale, "let shit go to hell" translates to "death" as a solution to the world's problems. This is how fascists fix their problems.

Sharkbait, what you (and others) "should be" discovering is the true meaning of the word "backward".

No need for the lecture dude. I largely agree with what you're saying. The fact remains that Paul would describe himself as a Libertarian and while many Libertarians have taken exception to the coherence of his claims to the title he has never recanted. We can go back and forth all day with regards to Paul's true motivations but his policy positions are a matter of record and this is what I've been referring to in my posts throughout this thread.

Sharkbait, what you (and others) "should be" discovering is the true meaning of the word "backward"

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate?

 

[mangobob79]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

anyone that would attack how an article is written, and the character of the author of the article but won't discuss the points in the article is ducking.

Sent from my evo shift

kerblam!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[TheFuser]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Anyone that would attack how an article is written, and the character of the author of the article but WON'T discuss the points in the article is ducking.

Sent from my EVO Shift

yup!

 

[dmx]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

No need for the lecture dude. I largely agree with what you're saying. The fact remains that Paul would describe himself as a Libertarian and while many Libertarians have taken exception to the coherence of his claims to the title he has never recanted. We can go back and forth all day with regards to Paul's true motivations but his policy positions are a matter of record and this is what I've been referring to in my posts throughout this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate?

No, not really…any fix I offer could be used to help them adjust, which they're obviously doing this time. And, no, we couldn't go back and forth because 1. I know who he represents and 2. unless someone says something remarkably convincing to the contrary, this is my last post.

BTW, excuse my tone…when I'm writing about researched facts, I tend not to use hedge words. My opinions are purposefully laced with them.

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Tim Wise?

This Jew is making money and notoriety off of Nelly Fuller Jr's theory.

This Fool is just upset because Paul wants to cut off Israel financially and militarily.

Paul's hands-off approach to IsraHell is why he has been persona non grata by the left and the right.

So....who really controls US politics?

• Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
  
  attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
  
  
  
• Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue):
  
  if an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right (or wrong). The idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue. (Being poor or being rich may be held out as being virtuous.) Therefore, the actual details of the argument can be overlooked, since correctness can be decided without any need to listen or think.

He wrote a bunch of nonsense, bruh.

It's really a poorly written article that was written in a manner to incite particular feelings.

I mean who starts an article talking about David Duke .

Poorly....poorly written.....

But this is how the chosen people operates........



Yep...and it was torture.

I hate reading far slanted opinions.

Reading this article was akin to watching fox news or CNN.

• Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
  
  attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
  
  For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."
  
  Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
  
  On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.

yeah...

Just like how Dr. Frances Cress Welsing called bitch ass Tim Wise out about becoming rich off of a black man's theory without giving that black man props.

• Appeal To Authority:
  
  "Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (But a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his statement in some specific context. And so on.)
  
  To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from.

I found hellfied errors in this very poorly written article.

These errors were in Wise's assessments.

I could take this article apart, but I don't get into defending politicians.

....especially when an article comes from the likes of Tim Wise.

Like I have stated earlier....this article was designed from start to finish with a particular agenda in mind.

I dont watch Fox News

I don't watch CNN.

This article is in the same vein.....

I don't have much else to say

• Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim):
  
  almost claiming something, but backing out. For example, "It may be, as some suppose, that ghosts can only be seen by certain so-called sensitives, who are possibly special mutations with, perhaps, abnormally extended ranges of vision and hearing. Yet some claim we are all sensitives."
  
  Another example: "I don't necessarily agree with the liquefaction theory, nor do I endorse all of Walter Brown's other material, but the geological statements are informative." The strange thing here is that liquefaction theory (the idea that the world's rocks formed in flood waters) was demolished in 1788. To "not necessarily agree" with it, today, is in the category of "not necessarily agreeing" with 2+2=3. But notice that writer implies some study of the matter, and only partial rejection.
  
  A similar thing is the failure to rebut. Suppose I raise an issue. The response that "Woodmorappe's book talks about that" could possibly be a reference to a resounding rebuttal. Or perhaps the responder hasn't even read the book yet. How can we tell ? [I later discovered it was the latter.]

Not really a cop-out

...I just don't care to discuss this article one way or another.

#1. Wise has introduced no new criticisms of Paul in this article

#2. The tone of this article is both insolent and trivial for readers who heavily consider aspects of foreign policy, banking and warmongering.

Why discuss his underlying points when we have discussed them in the past from different writers/journalists?

It's just not worth discussing

• Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
  
  if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
  
  This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.
  
  If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression.
  
  It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.

 

[Autobot8655]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

• Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
  
  attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
• Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue):
  
  if an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right (or wrong). The idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue. (Being poor or being rich may be held out as being virtuous.) Therefore, the actual details of the argument can be overlooked, since correctness can be decided without any need to listen or think.

• Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
  
  attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
  
  For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."
  
  Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
  
  On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.

• Appeal To Authority:
  
  "Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (But a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his statement in some specific context. And so on.)
  
  To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from.

• Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim):
  
  almost claiming something, but backing out. For example, "It may be, as some suppose, that ghosts can only be seen by certain so-called sensitives, who are possibly special mutations with, perhaps, abnormally extended ranges of vision and hearing. Yet some claim we are all sensitives."
  
  Another example: "I don't necessarily agree with the liquefaction theory, nor do I endorse all of Walter Brown's other material, but the geological statements are informative." The strange thing here is that liquefaction theory (the idea that the world's rocks formed in flood waters) was demolished in 1788. To "not necessarily agree" with it, today, is in the category of "not necessarily agreeing" with 2+2=3. But notice that writer implies some study of the matter, and only partial rejection.
  
  A similar thing is the failure to rebut. Suppose I raise an issue. The response that "Woodmorappe's book talks about that" could possibly be a reference to a resounding rebuttal. Or perhaps the responder hasn't even read the book yet. How can we tell ? [I later discovered it was the latter.]

• Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
  
  if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
  
  This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.
  
  If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression.
  
  It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.

Yall take this too seriously

No I don't like Tim Wise.

No I didn't care to discuss more of the same comments.

 

[sharkbait28]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

No, not really…any fix I offer could be used to help them adjust, which they're obviously doing this time. And, no, we couldn't go back and forth because 1. I know who he represents and 2. unless someone says something remarkably convincing to the contrary, this is my last post.

BTW, excuse my tone…when I'm writing about researched facts, I tend not to use hedge words. My opinions are purposefully laced with them.

 

[Drayonis]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Yall take this too seriously

No I don't like Tim Wise.

No I didn't care to discuss more of the same comments.

Will you repeat that last sentence next time a discussion about Obama comes up? I doubt it.

 

[Autobot8655]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Will you repeat that last sentence next time a discussion about Obama comes up? I doubt it.

Obama is the president of the United States.

Tim Wise is a talking head...a fucking pundit.

It is quite obvious that one is more pertinent than the other.

 

[ansatsusha_gouki]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Fuck Ron Paul

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Yall take this too seriously

No I don't like Tim Wise.

No I didn't care to discuss more of the same comments.

chicken out
vb
(intr, adverb) Informal to fail to do something through fear or lack of conviction

Obama is the president of the United States.

Tim Wise is a talking head...a fucking pundit.

It is quite obvious that one is more pertinent than the other.

• Non Sequitur:
  
  something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"
  
  Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.
  
  Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

 

[BigATLslim]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Tim RARELY disappoints and this is no exception.

I love Tim Wise. He is an "expert" on "white privilege". For those not familiar with him, here is some info. http://www.timwise.org/

An interview:
http://grittv.org/2011/08/25/tim-wise-dragging-racial-bias-into-the-open/

A list of his diaries he has posted on DailyKos:
http://dailykos.com/user/tim wise

Daily kos is blacked out to protest SOPA, you need to be logged in so that you don't get the black bars. Often what he puts on Dkos is often on his site as well, but the discussion that follows is always telling so you may want to check out the DKos site.

Youtube vids:

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...231l0l2691l8l7l0l0l0l0l452l1894l0.2.3.0.2l7l0

Good drop. I usually follow him on YouTube but I need a better source.

Tim Wise?

This Jew is making money and notoriety off of Nelly Fuller Jr's theory.

This Fool is just upset because Paul wants to cut off Israel financially and militarily.

Paul's hands-off approach to IsraHell is why he has been persona non grata by the left and the right.

So....who really controls US politics?

So what! This is par the course in America of whites making money off of what blacks have done.

As long as YOU know the truth, what the f*ck does it matter that he tells you?

yeah...

Just like how Dr. Frances Cress Welsing called bitch ass Tim Wise out about becoming rich off of a black man's theory without giving that black man props.

Distraction.

 

[Killa4luv]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Nah bruh... read the article. He is 100% right and is dropping nuclear bombs as per usual. There are stances that Paul takes that I find admirable but others (relating to issues of equal or greater import) on which he is a legit fucking maniac. Some nuance is helpful here.

U have said it all brother. Nuance is a lost art.

 

[Laughing Man]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Paul is NOT a Progressive in any sense. He's a conservative Libertarian. He's also a hypocrite and a fraud.
I agree with him on a couple issues, mostly involving civil liberties, but I see him for what he is.

One nasty little bit of hisory none of the Paulites like to talk about. he voted for teh AUMF, the Authorization to Use Military Force that W used to go buck wyld in Iraq, and supported Blackwater mercenaries, but he's anti-war

 

[Count23]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Obama is the president of the United States.

Tim Wise is a talking head...a fucking pundit.

It is quite obvious that one is more pertinent than the other.

You're not interested in discussing the article, yet you keep replying in this thread...

 

[gene cisco]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Yes, Paul's negatives are some shit. But it is a wonder why so-called "progressives" don't demand his progressive stances in their candidates. Until we do, we will be damned with the same cycle of fuck shit.

Is Paul the answer? No, of course not. The answer would be for progressives to grow balls and demand that their candidates have actual gotdamn progressive policies.

A start would be to not let anyone who supports and/or supported the Patriot Act in any shape or form near the fucking WAW House. But Americans are too fucking dumb for that.

Some of Paul's fiscal policies are more batshit than anything even the craziest republican ghoul could come up with. Paul is like having a genie who likes to fuck with you; you wish for a long and healthy life, but then you are wrongly sentenced to five life terms in the bing; you wish for $100 million, but then find out your family was killed and the $100 million is settlement money. Paul is not fit to be president.

One day the American people will elect a great president............ Shit, who am I kidding. It will never happen. Every four years it is the same fucking shit. Vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

One nasty little bit of hisory none of the Paulites like to talk about. he voted for teh AUMF, the Authorization to Use Military Force that W used to go buck wyld in Iraq, and supported Blackwater mercenaries, but he's anti-war

What?

You're not interested in discussing the article, yet you keep replying in this thread...

You would think he would pop in a defense of his boy Ronnie in one of those replies.

 

[Autobot8655]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

You're not interested in discussing the article, yet you keep replying in this thread...

replying nonsensically is a lot less labour intensive than discussing the article.



cats who want the article discussed can use the search feature...because like I have stated several times before....Wise added nothing to the "discussion"

 

[mangobob79]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Yall take this too seriously

No I don't like Tim Wise.

No I didn't care to discuss more of the same comments.

u are too cute with the laughing face included

 

[mangobob79]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

• ad hominem (argument to the man):
  
  Attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "von daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
  
  
  
• genetic fallacy (fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue):
  
  If an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right (or wrong). The idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue. (being poor or being rich may be held out as being virtuous.) therefore, the actual details of the argument can be overlooked, since correctness can be decided without any need to listen or think.

• straw man (fallacy of extension):
  
  Attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
  
  For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."
  
  another example: "senator jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
  
  on the internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and hitler.

• appeal to authority:
  
  "albert einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (but a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or perhaps einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his statement in some specific context. And so on.)
  
  to justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from.

• having your cake (failure to assert, or diminished claim):
  
  Almost claiming something, but backing out. For example, "it may be, as some suppose, that ghosts can only be seen by certain so-called sensitives, who are possibly special mutations with, perhaps, abnormally extended ranges of vision and hearing. Yet some claim we are all sensitives."
  
  another example: "i don't necessarily agree with the liquefaction theory, nor do i endorse all of walter brown's other material, but the geological statements are informative." the strange thing here is that liquefaction theory (the idea that the world's rocks formed in flood waters) was demolished in 1788. To "not necessarily agree" with it, today, is in the category of "not necessarily agreeing" with 2+2=3. But notice that writer implies some study of the matter, and only partial rejection.
  
  A similar thing is the failure to rebut. Suppose i raise an issue. The response that "woodmorappe's book talks about that" could possibly be a reference to a resounding rebuttal. Or perhaps the responder hasn't even read the book yet. How can we tell ? [i later discovered it was the latter.]

• moving the goalposts (raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection):
  
  If your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
  
  This is related to argument by question. Asking questions is easy: It's answering them that's hard.
  
  If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be infinite regression.
  
  It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes vitamin c might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the vitamin c.

oohh laaaaaaaawd !!! This is demolition derby!!!!! Goodnight autobot!!

 

[mike123]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Yall take this too seriously

No I don't like Tim Wise.

No I didn't care to discuss more of the same comments.

5-6 commits in an ur all in then when somebody does a detailed analysis of ur fuckery u comin at niggas with this "yall too serious" crap



props to buk for supplying that dose of ether

 

[mike123]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

chicken out
vb
(intr, adverb) Informal to fail to do something through fear or lack of conviction

• Non Sequitur:
  
  something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"
  
  Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.
  
  Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

got damn
roasting that poor fool alive

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

replying nonsensically is a lot less labour intensive than discussing the article.



cats who want the article discussed can use the search feature...because like I have stated several times before....Wise added nothing to the "discussion"

I'm not in every Paul thread but the ones I've been in, there isn't much defense of Paul from you or anyone in those either. Usually, detailing how fucked up Paul is in totality is how those threads end.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Obama is the president of the United States.

Tim Wise is a talking head...a fucking pundit.

It is quite obvious that one is more pertinent than the other.

Damn for someone who doesn't care... I gotta see so many dumb ass responses about nothing. Why not one post and leave or better no posts if you aren't even going to touch the issue at hand...

 

[Damn Right]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

he need 2 flame house negros on bgol that big up ron paul like he adam clayton powell

 

[Laughing Man]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

The Bgol Coon-Squad will be here in a few to tell you "none of that matters about Paul, because he agrees with me about 3 or 4 things".

Tim Wise?

This Jew is making money and notoriety off of Nelly Fuller Jr's theory.

This Fool is just upset because Paul wants to cut off Israel financially and militarily.

Paul's hands-off approach to IsraHell is why he has been persona non grata by the left and the right.

So....who really controls US politics?

 

[kefta]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Replace racism/white supremacy with JUSTICE! Now!

 

[sirwoodz]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

Replace racism/white supremacy with JUSTICE! Now!

is this you man!?

 

[kefta]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

is this you man!?

No Sir. Just calling the system for what it is. And as a person that is politically classified as black, i am qualified to suspect Mr. Ron Paul and Mr. Tim Wise of practicing, maintaining and refining the global, national and local system of racism/white supremacy. Now, is there a problem with that? and if there is one? then Why?

 

[aek_54]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ

 

[Laughing Man]

Re: Tim Wise goes in on white "liberals" who support Ron Paul, but ignore his negativ