StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-12-21 06:44am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Ron Paul approved newsletters personally, and BONUS!

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 4 of 6
 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

bobalot
PostPosted: 2012-02-08 02:40am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2008-05-21 06:42am
Posts: 1537
Location: Sydney, Australia
In more Ron Paul news, Ron Paul Calls For The Elimination Of Public Lands
Quote:
This is not the first time Paul has called for public lands to be turned over to states or private entities. In October he told the Western Republican Leadership Conference that public lands “should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-02-08 03:18am 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
General Brock wrote:
As hard as I've looked, the hate Ron Paul bandwagon is predominantly a white elitist/wannabe elitist phenomenon.

Wow. I look forward to pictures of Ron Paul rallies in your world. The sea of dark-skinned faces must be quite a sight, what with all the white elitists who hate him and the minorities who love him. Strangely, I can't find any pictures like this on the Internet, but I'm sure your mind is full of them.

Quote:
Its just so much easier to identify examples of populist support for Ron Paul across racial and economic boundaries

That is a fascinating claim. Please, by all means, show us all these examples of minority support for Ron Paul.

Quote:
... antiwar, antiracism, pro-constitutionalism, pro-civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility ...

Empty slogans. Nothing more.

He has openly stated that he would prefer to eliminate laws that prohibit racist policies at the state level. He has openly stated that he would allow state-level governments to infringe upon individual freedoms. His "fiscal responsibility" line is a joke; there is nothing "responsible" about treating public assets like a yard sale. And everyone on both sides of every major political dispute likes to wrap himself in the constitution. It grows tiresome; the constitution is just a legal document. In a nation of wannabe-lawyers, the ultimate legal document also represents the ultimate moral authority, but that's part of the derangement of America.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-02-08 05:16pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
bobalot wrote:


To be honest, this is an actual partially good idea in the bag of insanity that is RONPAUL.

76.1% of all land in Nevada is owned by NFS/BLM; same with 70.2% in Utah and 60.5% in Idaho.

To put this in perspective; only 26.5% of all land in Montana, 25.7% of all land in Alaska is BLM/NFS land.

This is a sore issue with people in the Western states; that they can use the land for limited purposes, but never really truly own it...

...and if you read the keyword in that paragraph you posted bobalot:

Western Republican Leadership Conference

IOW, RONPAUL is pandering and adapting his message to what each specific group of voters wants.

...But But but, I thought he was a new kind of man! An Uncorruptable politican!

YOU LIEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

*jump off thermal shaft shouting NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-02-08 10:31pm 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.

It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.
   Profile |  

UnderAGreySky
PostPosted: 2012-02-09 09:26pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2010-01-07 07:39pm
Posts: 632
Location: the land of tea and crumpets
Darth Wong wrote:
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.

It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.


Bingo. This tactic you state has been why I have been permanently turned off by his fanatics. I was never enamoured of them, but some times I could give them a pass for being well-meaning but naive. Now it's ether the wilfully ignorant or the brain damaged.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 01:02am 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
UnderAGreySky wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.

It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.

Bingo. This tactic you state has been why I have been permanently turned off by his fanatics. I was never enamoured of them, but some times I could give them a pass for being well-meaning but naive. Now it's ether the wilfully ignorant or the brain damaged.

Indeed. Whenever I engage one in discussion, the initial impression of "he just let someone lead him down the garden path" quickly fades when I see how they dig in their heels and come up with an armload of talking points for every criticism I might raise. These guys aren't just being hoodwinked; they're fanatics for Dear Leader.
   Profile |  

Ralin
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 01:35am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am
Posts: 1181
Little belated, but in response to the white supremacist thing? What I said about how Ron Paul might be the best candidate just on the grounds that he probably couldn't accomplish all the horrible things he wants to do?

I admit, I was wrong
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 02:15am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
Can I just come back in here and say that I don't give a fuck whether he is or isn't racist, but the fact that he intends to allow no less than three million third worlders a year to starve to death is the ultimate, unanswerable trump card against his presidency? You have to look long and hard to come up with an argument that makes the Paulodomor worthwhile.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 02:22am 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
I actually think that a lot of his supporters are supporting him simply because they've seen him on TV and they think he seems likable and sincere.

You know, just like young women thought Ted Bundy seemed like a really nice, trustworthy guy. People rely way too much on their gut instinct.
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 02:34am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
Yeah, he has Reagan appeal. I just didn't think that counted for much among the jaded internet generation.
   Profile |  

Metatwaddle
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 03:25am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Posts: 1910
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
I think charisma and likability count for anyone, especially if the candidate is telling people what they already think. Obama certainly benefited from that in '08. For Paul, he's mostly popular with young white men from upper-middle-class families, who stand to benefit the most and suffer the least harm from his policies. (Well, I suppose old white upper-middle-class men would benefit too.) The Ron Paul movement also provides a way for those people to feel like oppressed moral crusaders, without actually being oppressed, of course.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 04:17am 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Metatwaddle wrote:
I think charisma and likability count for anyone, especially if the candidate is telling people what they already think. Obama certainly benefited from that in '08. For Paul, he's mostly popular with young white men from upper-middle-class families, who stand to benefit the most and suffer the least harm from his policies. (Well, I suppose old white upper-middle-class men would benefit too.) The Ron Paul movement also provides a way for those people to feel like oppressed moral crusaders, without actually being oppressed, of course.

Well, at least they think they would benefit from his policies. In reality those policies would pretty much sink the entire country down the toilet for generations by demolishing much of the infrastructure required for future prosperity, but they don't realize that because they don't perceive individual benefit from those policies. It's like trying to explain the importance of public schooling to a guy who puts his kids through private school. He honestly can't understand how he personally benefits from it, even though everyone benefits from living in a society with a generally capable workforce and voters who know how to read. The absolute disconnection between private and public benefit in his mind is like a wall, and he feels that Ron Paul is on his side of the wall, while all the liberals are on the other side.

Having said all that, this bizarre widespread impression of him being an unusually "honest" politician still seems like something that can only be chalked up to gut instinct.
   Profile |  

Ziggy Stardust
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 04:52pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Posts: 1838
Location: Research Triangle, NC
Darth Wong wrote:
I actually think that a lot of his supporters are supporting him simply because they've seen him on TV and they think he seems likable and sincere.

You know, just like young women thought Ted Bundy seemed like a really nice, trustworthy guy. People rely way too much on their gut instinct.


Indeed. The way most people get their political opinions these days are from quick (~30 minute) "check-ins" with some preferred website or TV network/show. Not just with the conservatives, either, liberals, as well are guilty of this. If you can only build your opinions on people from collections of 10-second sound-bytes in a media climate that adamantly refuses to critically address or confront the candidates (preferring instead the bizarre cycle of kissing ass and inventing controversy), all politicians start to look pretty damned good. I mean, how many people out there even KNOW about this Ron Paul newsletter issue? I didn't know about it before the threads popped up on SDN, and I am one of the few people I know who actively keeps myself updated on current events from a variety of sources.
   Profile |  

Metatwaddle
PostPosted: 2012-02-10 11:00pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Posts: 1910
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Uh, it's not some kind of underground liberal-blogs-only story. There was a CNN interview where he was asked about it, and the Republican debate in New Hampshire featured a question about it, too. A quick google for "ron paul racist newsletter" found results from the Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, New York Daily News, The Atlantic, Salon, the Christian Science Monitor, and plenty more.

(Edit: Mike, I didn't respond to your post because I pretty much agree with it, not because I'm ignoring it.)
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 07:03pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Darth Wong wrote:
Wow. I look forward to pictures of Ron Paul rallies in your world. The sea of dark-skinned faces must be quite a sight, what with all the white elitists who hate him and the minorities who love him. Strangely, I can't find any pictures like this on the Internet, but I'm sure your mind is full of them.


At a GOP rally!? Hardly.

I'm serious. There is no comparable hate-Paul over the newsletters from non-whites as compared to whites. Ron Paul attracts minority supporters to GOP primaries. One wouldn't necessarily be surprised at large mostly-white crowds at a GOP rally. That's the whole point of the hate-Paul use of racism - to scare whites because they aren't racist and fear the label, or because they are racist and Paul's ratting on the system.


Quote:
That is a fascinating claim. Please, by all means, show us all these examples of minority support for Ron Paul.


You'd think minority rights bloggers would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but they're not. While WashingtonsBlog makes the mistake of saying Ron Paul voted for MLK Day (Paul voted against two attempts because he was opposed to making another paid Federal holiday), Paul did vote yes to an ammendment to make the holiday every third Monday of January instead of every 15th of January, which makes the holiday much less disruptive to a work week in which the 15th could land in the middle of the week instead of always immediately following a weekend.

You'd think minority rights groups would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but while NAACP Austin President Nelson Linder may not support Ron Paul politically, he personally vouches for Ron Paul's non-racism.

Black Libertarian Walter Williams also believes Ron Paul isn't racist based on knowing the guy form over 20 years.

In Nevada, Ron Paul spoke to the nonpartisan Hispanics in Politics. He was well-received. No-one took him to task over the newsletters.

The main Latino concern?

Quote:
But Paul’s message to Latino voters isn’t going down completely smoothly. He upset a a Latino woman with his opposition to the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to some illegal residents. But he registered his objections with sympathy, explaining that he simply opposes spending federal money to help one minority group over another.

“The DREAM Act was the only place where he was absolutely wrong,” said Fernando Romero, the president of the group that hosted the morning forum. Romero is a Democrat who said he worked as a political consultant for McCain last cycle.


Rap isn't known for pulling punches; is Snoop Dogg worried about newsletters? Nope; he's all for ending the war on drugs and few if any of his fans accross race appear outraged in the least.

There seems to be a lot of African-American support on Youtube.

There are a lot of minority youtube posters, who support Ron Paul as enthusiastically and for the same reasons as white Ron Paul supporters.

No indications from openly homosexual politician Rick Sincere that Ron Paul is a homophobe either.

So really, Paul haters are using classic double entendre disinfo. One message to smears Paul across two white constituencies based on their take on racism. Except, of course, the libertarian white constituency that isn't fooled on moment by the ploy and is probably a little annoyed with it.

I suppose the hate-Paul bandwagon would accept bonus points scammed from minority individuals in doubt, but they're not the main target. Not many takers in that third category anyway.

Again, there is a notable absence of hate-Paul from persons 'of race'.

I'd at least expect overwhelming silence from minorities conflicted with the different Ron Paul positions. But no, as demonstrated above, Ron Paul has minority supporters and what's more, they're grassroots supporters who have made the decision on their own to support Ron Paul, and not following any leader.

Every Ron Paul supporter is an informed supporter. They've weighed the pros and cons, and decided Ron Paul stands closer for them than any other candidate.

The harshest Paul critic who is also a minority is ]Ta-Nehisi Coates[/url], a senior editor for The Atlantic. Yet, even he says:

Quote:
I want to reiterate--again--that I make no claims on the heart of Ron Paul. How he truly feels about black people is best left to Paul and his conscience. His actual record, however, is wholly subject to the wiles of google.


He goes further:

Quote:
...
As I've said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is "good" for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.


Since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate taking antiwar, antiracism, pro civil rights and liberties, pro-constitutionalism and pro fiscal responsibility to the forefront, then Ron Paul is the only person to support if one agrees those issues are paramount priorities over more war and less fiscal restraint.

The status-quo is all for those things and taking them to the next level. The status quo so far has not been the steller triumph of humanitarianism, but only turned humanitarianism into yet another excuse to be inhumane.

Ron Paul opposes far greater ills than any petty hypocrisy he's ever been accused of. Ron Paul appears soft on sticking it to racist homophobes with their own money; some people don't see a problem except that the method used wasn't cool. Ron Paul disavowed having anything to do with it, but accepts moral responsibility for the tactic being used.

Quote:
Empty slogans. Nothing more.

He has openly stated that he would prefer to eliminate laws that prohibit racist policies at the state level. He has openly stated that he would allow state-level governments to infringe upon individual freedoms. His "fiscal responsibility" line is a joke; there is nothing "responsible" about treating public assets like a yard sale. And everyone on both sides of every major political dispute likes to wrap himself in the constitution. It grows tiresome; the constitution is just a legal document. In a nation of wannabe-lawyers, the ultimate legal document also represents the ultimate moral authority, but that's part of the derangement of America.


Well, a nation's laws will reflect the morality of its people. People are not necessarily in agreement with attacks upon the U.S. Constitution. The cynicism of the failure of successive American government to live up to it, especially in terms of foreign policy, cannot be confused with disliking the Constitution, or for that matter the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul didn't like the Civil Rights Act because he considered it more divisive than useful in eliminating racial discrimination, but he never had any problems with the intent. There is nothing saying states can't advocate in favour of civil rights. State Rights is attractive because it allows the people to play one level against the other for their benefit, not place all their eggs in the overarching power of one level of government, in this case, the Federal government.

Ron Paul has raised important issues that need to be addressed, and if its just sloganeering, more needs be done:

1. The foreign wars. All races are affected on the basis of wealth; the promise of the military to pay for higher education, for example, or just a paying job that might eventually lead to something in the private sector upon retirement from the military. More non-whites than whites tend to be poor relative to their numbers in the population, and disproportionately serve in the military. I'd wager, also in the more dangerous and less glamorous and prestigious military professions. Then there is the enormous cost of the military-industrial complex locked into expending blood and treasure in conflict rather than investing it in far less costly defensive initiatives.

2. The internal war on drugs results in a higher percentage of poorer minorities imprisoned alongside poor whites. All come out of those prisons with a record affecting employment and education opportunities, further setting back any dependents they may have. Add to that, the reputation of prisons for making, rather than reforming, criminals.

3. Most candidates wrap themselves up in the flag, not the Constitution. Ron Paul has been fairly consistent in basing his positions from the Constitution and principles of civil liberty. His entire career has been one of opposing expediency over the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, among other provisions.

There are many problems with the way the government and its agencies place expediency over the constitution. The core is that the rights of the weak and the minority are ignored for benefit of the strongest player able to buy Federal power, reinforced by an under informed, apathetic majority.

4. Civil liberties and civil rights are hardly separate issues. Without liberty to speech and debate, the quality of civil rights cannot be challenged. There are no Presidential candidates except Ron Paul saying that the Patriot Act and the NDAA are a problem. The constitution is ignored except to trumpet its every breach. Under such circumstances, States with operative versions of the Bill of Rights make State's rights look very attractive indeed as a check to federal abuses. Empowering them with the added economic clout of Federal lands isn't exactly terrifying. They are pretty much held in reserve for the highest corporate bidders anyway.

5. Fiscal responsibility isn't even a slogan. Its absent from the debate unless something radical like ending the Fed comes up - only to be dismissed as stupid while the status quo - print more money is somehow more rational. Yet, the Fed is at the core of lot of problems America today faces.


Darth Wong
Quote:
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.

It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.


Ron Paul has never lied where it counts, his voting record and official positions and speeches as a Congressman. The only notable reversal of position was his stand against the death penalty. Ron Paul believes it feels disproportionally penalizes non-whites and poor whites, while allowing rich white guys to evade the penalty, and DNA evidence demonstrates there have been too many wrongful convictions to permit it to continue.

Barrack O-Blam-AAaa has expanded the drone wars and openly denies the obvious, that drone assassinations also murder innocent people beyond the initial collateral slaughter.

O-Blam!-Aaa also signed away the 5th Amemdment rights of Americans when he said he wouldn't and pretty much finished posse comitatus. Some people look at these two events as rather alarming apart, let alone put together into a larger picture. State rights have never looked as good since the Northern states bucked Federal fugitive slave laws, in resisting now the NDAA.

People know the other guys will lie. Yet, they don't make a whole lot of promises to break regarding ending foreign and domestic wars, restoring Constititutional rule and civil liberties, or to exercise fiscal responsibilty. In fact, they'll argue anything but those issues so that the status quo may continue unchallenged, breaking ice like the Titanic.

So, Ron Paul comes out ahead even if one suspects he's lying through his teeth and his policies seem unusual. Its just that bad, and the greater evil lies in dodging that reality and not starting the push back right now with the people and tools remaining at hand. As far as any Ron Paul supporter is concerned, the longer Americans wait, the fewer such resources will remain against the momentum of apathy and willful ignorance towards autocratic encroachment.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 07:04pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Darth Wong wrote:
Wow. I look forward to pictures of Ron Paul rallies in your world. The sea of dark-skinned faces must be quite a sight, what with all the white elitists who hate him and the minorities who love him. Strangely, I can't find any pictures like this on the Internet, but I'm sure your mind is full of them.


At a GOP rally!? Hardly.

I'm serious. There is no comparable hate-Paul over the newsletters from non-whites as compared to whites. Ron Paul attracts minority supporters to GOP primaries. One wouldn't necessarily be surprised at large mostly-white crowds at a GOP rally. That's the whole point of the hate-Paul use of racism - to scare whites because they aren't racist and fear the label, or because they are racist and Paul's ratting on the system.


Quote:
That is a fascinating claim. Please, by all means, show us all these examples of minority support for Ron Paul.


You'd think minority rights bloggers would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but they're not. While WashingtonsBlog makes the mistake of saying Ron Paul voted for MLK Day (Paul voted against two attempts because he was opposed to making another paid Federal holiday), Paul did vote yes to an ammendment to make the holiday every third Monday of January instead of every 15th of January, which makes the holiday much less disruptive to a work week in which the 15th could land in the middle of the week instead of always immediately following a weekend.

You'd think minority rights groups would be rallying to shut down Ron Paul, GOP or no... but while NAACP Austin President Nelson Linder may not support Ron Paul politically, he personally vouches for Ron Paul's non-racism.

Black Libertarian Walter Williams also believes Ron Paul isn't racist based on knowing the guy form over 20 years.

In Nevada, Ron Paul spoke to the nonpartisan Hispanics in Politics. He was well-received. No-one took him to task over the newsletters.

The main Latino concern?

Quote:
But Paul’s message to Latino voters isn’t going down completely smoothly. He upset a a Latino woman with his opposition to the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to some illegal residents. But he registered his objections with sympathy, explaining that he simply opposes spending federal money to help one minority group over another.

“The DREAM Act was the only place where he was absolutely wrong,” said Fernando Romero, the president of the group that hosted the morning forum. Romero is a Democrat who said he worked as a political consultant for McCain last cycle.


Rap isn't known for pulling punches; is Snoop Dogg worried about newsletters? Nope; he's all for ending the war on drugs and few if any of his fans accross race appear outraged in the least.

There seems to be a lot of African-American support on Youtube.

There are a lot of minority youtube posters, who support Ron Paul as enthusiastically and for the same reasons as white Ron Paul supporters.

No indications from openly homosexual politician Rick Sincere that Ron Paul is a homophobe either.

So really, Paul haters are using classic double entendre disinfo. One message smears Paul across two white constituencies based on their take on racism. Except, of course, the libertarian white constituency that isn't fooled on moment by the ploy and is probably a little annoyed with it.

I suppose the hate-Paul bandwagon would accept bonus points scammed from minority individuals in doubt, but they're not the main target. Not many takers in that third category anyway.

Again, there is a notable absence of hate-Paul from persons 'of race'.

I'd at least expect overwhelming silence from minorities conflicted with the different Ron Paul positions. But no, as demonstrated above, Ron Paul has minority supporters and what's more, they're grassroots supporters who have made the decision on their own to support Ron Paul, and not following any leader.

Every Ron Paul supporter is an informed supporter. They've weighed the pros and cons, and decided Ron Paul stands closer for them than any other candidate.

The harshest Paul critic who is also a minority is Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor for The Atlantic. Yet, even he says:

Quote:
I want to reiterate--again--that I make no claims on the heart of Ron Paul. How he truly feels about black people is best left to Paul and his conscience. His actual record, however, is wholly subject to the wiles of google.


He goes further:

Quote:
...
As I've said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is "good" for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.


Since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate taking antiwar, antiracism, pro civil rights and liberties, pro-constitutionalism and pro fiscal responsibility to the forefront, then Ron Paul is the only person to support if one agrees those issues are paramount priorities over more war and less fiscal restraint.

The status-quo is all for those things and taking them to the next level. The status quo so far has not been the steller triumph of humanitarianism, but only turned humanitarianism into yet another excuse to be inhumane.

Ron Paul opposes far greater ills than any petty hypocrisy he's ever been accused of. Ron Paul appears soft on sticking it to racist homophobes with their own money; some people don't see a problem except that the method used wasn't cool. Ron Paul disavowed having anything to do with it, but accepts moral responsibility for the tactic being used.

Quote:
Empty slogans. Nothing more.

He has openly stated that he would prefer to eliminate laws that prohibit racist policies at the state level. He has openly stated that he would allow state-level governments to infringe upon individual freedoms. His "fiscal responsibility" line is a joke; there is nothing "responsible" about treating public assets like a yard sale. And everyone on both sides of every major political dispute likes to wrap himself in the constitution. It grows tiresome; the constitution is just a legal document. In a nation of wannabe-lawyers, the ultimate legal document also represents the ultimate moral authority, but that's part of the derangement of America.


Well, a nation's laws will reflect the morality of its people. People are not necessarily in agreement with attacks upon the U.S. Constitution. The cynicism of the failure of successive American government to live up to it, especially in terms of foreign policy, cannot be confused with disliking the Constitution, or for that matter the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul didn't like the Civil Rights Act because he considered it more divisive than useful in eliminating racial discrimination, but he never had any problems with the intent. There is nothing saying states can't advocate in favour of civil rights. State Rights is attractive because it allows the people to play one level against the other for their benefit, not place all their eggs in the overarching power of one level of government, in this case, the Federal government.

Ron Paul has raised important issues that need to be addressed, and if its just sloganeering, more needs be done:

1. The foreign wars. All races are affected on the basis of wealth; the promise of the military to pay for higher education, for example, or just a paying job that might eventually lead to something in the private sector upon retirement from the military. More non-whites than whites tend to be poor relative to their numbers in the population, and disproportionately serve in the military. I'd wager, also in the more dangerous and less glamorous and prestigious military professions. Then there is the enormous cost of the military-industrial complex locked into expending blood and treasure in conflict rather than investing it in far less costly defensive initiatives.

2. The internal war on drugs results in a higher percentage of poorer minorities imprisoned alongside poor whites. All come out of those prisons with a record affecting employment and education opportunities, further setting back any dependents they may have. Add to that, the reputation of prisons for making, rather than reforming, criminals.

3. Most candidates wrap themselves up in the flag, not the Constitution. Ron Paul has been fairly consistent in basing his positions from the Constitution and principles of civil liberty. His entire career has been one of opposing expediency over the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, among other provisions.

There are many problems with the way the government and its agencies place expediency over the constitution. The core is that the rights of the weak and the minority are ignored for benefit of the strongest player able to buy Federal power, reinforced by an under informed, apathetic majority.

4. Civil liberties and civil rights are hardly separate issues. Without liberty to speech and debate, the quality of civil rights cannot be challenged. There are no Presidential candidates except Ron Paul saying that the Patriot Act and the NDAA are a problem. The constitution is ignored except to trumpet its every breach. Under such circumstances, States with operative versions of the Bill of Rights make State's rights look very attractive indeed as a check to federal abuses. Empowering them with the added economic clout of Federal lands isn't exactly terrifying. They are pretty much held in reserve for the highest corporate bidders anyway.

5. Fiscal responsibility isn't even a slogan. Its absent from the debate unless something radical like ending the Fed comes up - only to be dismissed as stupid while the status quo - print more money is somehow more rational. Yet, the Fed is at the core of lot of problems America today faces.


Darth Wong
Quote:
I like the way Ron Paul supporters say that the racist newsletters were not his honest opinion, but merely a "paleoconservative strategy", and then they go on to say that he's the "only honest politician in Washington", without a trace of irony.

It's amazing; they believe that Ron Paul never lies ... except when he's caught saying something horrible. When that happens, then he's obviously lying.


Ron Paul has never lied where it counts, his voting record and official positions and speeches as a Congressman. The only notable reversal of position was his stand against the death penalty. Ron Paul believes it feels disproportionally penalizes non-whites and poor whites, while allowing rich white guys to evade the penalty, and DNA evidence demonstrates there have been too many wrongful convictions to permit it to continue.

Barrack O-Blam-AAaa has expanded the drone wars and openly denies the obvious, that drone assassinations also murder innocent people beyond the initial collateral slaughter.

O-Blam!-Aaa also signed away the 5th Amemdment rights of Americans when he said he wouldn't and pretty much finished posse comitatus. Some people look at these two events as rather alarming apart, let alone put together into a larger picture. State rights have never looked as good since the Northern states bucked Federal fugitive slave laws, in resisting now the NDAA.

People know the other guys will lie. Yet, they don't make a whole lot of promises to break regarding ending foreign and domestic wars, restoring Constitutional rule and civil liberties, or to exercise fiscal responsibility. In fact, they'll argue anything but those issues so that the status quo may continue unchallenged, breaking ice like the Titanic.

So, Ron Paul comes out ahead even if one suspects he's lying through his teeth and his policies seem unusual. Its just that bad, and the greater evil lies in dodging that reality and not starting the push back right now with the people and tools remaining at hand. As far as any Ron Paul supporter is concerned, the longer Americans wait, the fewer such resources will remain against the momentum of apathy and willful ignorance towards autocratic encroachment.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 07:12pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Simon_Jester wrote:
No fooling- you even write like a conspiracy theorist.


Strip the NWO of its non-think mystique, and it looks a lot like global class war. Its come full circle, once from radicals on the left at the turn of the century, and now from radicals of the right today.

The only real debate, is who should wield power, individual citizens via republicanism and the free market, or a wealthy elite via oligarchic statism and crony capitalism. The mainstream is so radically stupid, that what was radicalism, isn't anymore.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 07:36pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Ziggy Stardust wrote:
So, please, provide PROOF, not say-so.


I've provided proof repeatedly.

Never has the question been answered, where is the alternative to Ron Paul other than the status quo that makes him look far better today than he did even in 2008?

Where is the Antiwar candidate? Where is the antiracist candidate? Where is the pro-constitution candidate? Where is the fiscal responsibility candidate? Where is the civil rights and civil liberties candidate? If politicians lie, why not lie about those things and pretend to address the real issues?

Where is the 'proof' that Ron Paul will be a disaster, when he's not even won the nomination? Yet this hypothetical disaster scenario is somehow going to be worse that the status quo, which has fulfilled predicted disaster after predicted disaster by everyone opposed to it and yet it still goes on? The foreign wars are unwon after a decade and any pullback seems more like redirecting resources to accommodate action in Syria or Iran or both. The war on drugs is unwinnable. Important civil liberties are ended in law. Fiscal responsibility is a joke. America is at least as polarized on race today as it ever was before the civil rights act.

The future of America may rest in who the GOP nominates to oppose O-Blam!-Aaaa, but even that hangs on whether or not an antiracist is really antiracist. Not what he has to say and can prompt others to say about everything else that matters a lot more than 20 year old newsletters.
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 08:12pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
I've provided proof that Ron Paul intends to kill in excess of three million starving infection-prone third-worlders per year, just to spite some foreign despots who may or may not occupy a moral grey area and save a paltry sum of the US federal budget. You've not provided one argument, not once, that your hyperbolic fears about the imminent fall of democracy are worth the price of the Paulodomor. Do it. Now.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 08:28pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
I have, in the form of the question, who will bring up the important issues and offer solutions other than Ron Paul?

Democracy is already dead if the hard questions aren't being asked and answered. Ron Paul gets shot down without any solutions to the questions he poses ever being answered other than, 'hate Paul'.
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 08:35pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
As I have stated, this does not qualify as an argument justifying the deaths of well over three million third worlders a year. But don't take it from me; take it from the Paulbots who routinely bleat about the inhumanity of the dead of Iraq, an order of magnitude in number below what Paul would inflict on the third world.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 08:53pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Ever stop to think why the Third World is a charity case?

Since the status quo got those Third Worlders in trouble in the first place, I'd say Ron Paul is on track with getting the U.S. out of the business of exploiting the Third World and returning a pittance in aid.

The African Dream of development, for example, is at odds with the traditional Western view of Africa as a storehouse of cheap natural resources.

Even the fight against global warming is corrupted. In Uganda, First World companies think nothing of casting Africans into destitution in exchange for carbon credits using compliant local regimes. Any regime that isn't compliant, doesn't last long.

There's a huge body of literature detailing how the West keeps the Third World down.

Ron Paul's promise to end 'foreign aid' meddling is a non-starter to anyone informed on the issues.

Last edited by General Brock on 2012-02-11 09:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 09:00pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
Name one policy Ron Paul intends to pursue that would hamper the ability of multinationals in America to exploit the Third World. Simply because Ron Paul is a threat to the status quo does not make him a benificient or well-founded threat who can help the exploited. A "non-starter"? Tell that to any one of the three million lives saved by US federal aid immunization programs, which is more good than stands to be achieved by the unscientific, dogmatic Misesism of an ideological gnone.
   Profile |  

General Brock
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 09:09pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1726
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
You are posing that question seriously? How about AFRICOM and the Libyan war to start.

That fight wasn't about freeing Libyans, but freeing their oil for multinationals. Europe alone couldn't carry that fight.
   Profile |  

TithonusSyndrome
PostPosted: 2012-02-11 09:22pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Posts: 2332
Location: Pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty heavy
Yes yes yes, you tediously dishonest fool, the status quo has not done right by the third world. However, giving them scraps as aid and some lousy jobs is still incontestably more humane and moral than giving them nothing and telling them to just straighten up and fly right, gosh darn it, like an abusive drunken father who thinks his handicapped son is just lazy and bound to eventually respond to bellowing and/or neglect. Ron Paul's best-case scenario is functionally indistinguishable from Southern pro-slavery asshats who feel they have no obligation to provide reparations for the spoils of colonialism they were born into and take for granted. Realistically, it's that plus another five million dead a year more than right now.

This basically amounts to a test of your ability to determine whether having something to eat is better than having nothing to eat. The honor of Ron Paul being on the line, you've opted to fail that test. Me, I don't like having to sleep in a shit-lined bed, but if that's how you want to make it, I can't stop you.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 4 of 6
 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

It is currently 2014-12-21 06:44am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: Agent Fisher, Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Grumman, Kon_El, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group