Ron Paul

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-CNN-EXPOSES-Ron-Paul-s-anti-Semitic-remarks-and-links-to-NEO-NAZIS

From CNN

Didn't this come up in some previous election? It seems like "deja vu news" somehow.

Anyway I have to doubt that Paul, or his son for that matter, are such overt racists. He seems too smart to let such sentiments be evident, even if he were to have them (which I don't believe).

I think they do get into trouble on the issue of racism because of their stance on the Civil Rights Act and related legislation. The fact that there is a history in the US of some (many) people using the law, and their personal power, to deny others their legal civil rights forces others who disagree with that behavior to make a choice. You can opt to use the power of the law to try to deny racists the ability to interfere with basic civil rights of others; this is what the Civil Rights Act does. Of course, that legislation impedes the freedom of racists to act according to their beliefs (although it can't change their beliefs directly of course), and imposes "government approved behaviors" (i.e. the Constitution) on them. The libertarian perspective advocated by Paul, and more recently by his son, is instead to say the freedom of those with racist beliefs to act on those beliefs should take precedence over the governments imposition of it's "belief system". In other words, they would have preferred to have those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism wait for relief until the racists in positions of power voluntarily agreed to give up some of that power (by allowing non-whites to vote, for example). So, although the Pauls themselves may not hold racist beliefs, they appear to be supporting racist positions by arguing that the government has no right to force people with racist beliefs to at least behave in a non-racist manner, despite the fact that this leaves the victims of racism with no relief.

This sort of stance is why I cannot support Ron Paul. It permeates all his policies. According to him, the government should not be able to act to curtail polluters, or prevent the sale of contaminated food or fraudulent pharmaceutical drugs. If you believe you have been harmed by someone doing one of these things, you can (using your own resources) attempt to gather the data to prove your case, and then seek relief in the courts. In most cases that's an impossible task. If you have five different chemical plants spewing known carcinogens into the water supply of your city, and the cancer rate is ten times what it is in a normal area, you still will never be able to prove which individual plant released the specific carcinogenic molecule that spawned your specific tumor. Only an agency like the CDC, with the ability to investigate across state boundaries, has the ability to track down contaminated lettuce/peanut butter/whatever to its source and shut it down, preventing further infection. Paul would close the CDC, and leave it to individual states to do the job, although he knows individual states would not be able to track disease outbreaks or food shipments across state borders.

Everyone must decide for themselves where the appropriate balance between personal freedom and government protection lies. I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that we should be free to engage in behaviors that pose a risk only to ourselves (such as skydiving). Ron Paul (and his son) seem to place their balance so that most behaviors that do cause harm to others (perhaps short of actually shooting people) would be legally permissible; if you think you have been harmed you'll have to hope the courts can provide compensation after the fact. This is probably an inevitable consequence of their vision of a government that is so tiny that it can't actually do anything.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Surely you realize how ridiculous this is. So 22 years ago someone else wrote some articles that RP says he didn't write and disavows.

So, he wasn't checking the content of his own newsletter, but we should trust him to keep up on what Congress does?

Quote

I also love how they try to spin it like hes lying because he said he never read these specific articles back then, and in another sentence said he reads some of the publishings. So reading some of the publishings equates to reading the specific racial articles?

See above - and he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president?

If you don't like the guy, you don't like the guy. I'm cool with that. I understand his foreign policy views drive people crazy. But these latest accusations are pretty silly. They're no secret. This came up last election, everybody knows about his stance on this, yet rather than debate him on the issues, everyone grabbing at straws on this one. I think folks are starting to feel threatened by him and the fact there is a very large portion of GOP voters that don't have a problem with his foreign policy views.

You're never going to find a political candidate out there that doesn't have some baggage. His is pretty minor in comparison, in my opinion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president?

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss?

He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

As an outsider looking in, I really don't see this as being an issue that will influence many undecided/swing voters in the GOP primaries.

[diverborg 0]

For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic like some. I don't think he's the perfect president. I think he screwed the pooch with his comments on Manning. If anything costs him the election that will be it, IMO.

I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he's the best guy for the job for the conditions we are facing. You've got the same propaganda that led us to an unfounded, and incomprehensibly costly war in Iraq, now being touted for Iran. Will it take another 4,000 dead soldiers and $4 trillion and finding no nukes in Iran for Americans to realize maybe this isn't "worth it".

The fact is most of Ron Paul's claims regarding 9/11 and other attacks regarding blowback and such have came directly from the CIA reports. He's not pulling this crap out of his ass. But the time we were actually attacked on 9/11 he backed military action in Afghanistan.

So to sum it up, he's the only candidate that gives a shit about the constitution and personal liberties. Without cherry picking the rules to suit his personal opinions and the opinions of his voters. And he's the only guy that's suggesting we don't start another war we cannot afford. All foreign policy issues aside, we aren't going to even scrape the surface of this budget crisis without scaling back our military intervention let alone start another war.

How any of these candidates will actually do in office is a complete crapshoot. Ron Paul, IMO is a worthy experiment at this time, because he's the only one suggesting we actually change things. Newt and Romney will be 4 years of the same crap. Maybe not as bad as Obama, but they certainly haven't said anything that alludes to them fixing the mess they'll be handed.

Plus I think of all the candidates he has the best shot at beating Obama.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president?

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss?

He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really?

Just say it then... He's a goddamn racist nazi asshole.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president?

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss?

He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really?

Just say it then... He's a goddamn racist nazi asshole.

The last refuge of someone losing the argument.... Godwin's law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

Deleted this post because I feel I did a very poor job of paraphrasing GeorgiaDon's post.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president?

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss?

He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really?

Just say it then... He's a goddamn racist nazi asshole.

The last refuge of someone losing the argument.... Godwin's law.

Can you clarify then what point you are trying to make exactly? Because I can't really come to any other conclusion why someone would think this is an issue. I've taken my stance it hasn't changed. I'm not going to debate over some giant timeline dating back 20 years everything he's said to find some ridiculous inconsistency to hang the guy on.

Can you remember everything you've posted on here in the just the last month, and if you've ever contradicted yourself. I know I can't, let alone the last 20 years. In fact I found one of my own inconsistencies in the past week. Our memories are only so good.

So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

Rebutting the paulist meme that he didn't know what was being published under his banner.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Quote

So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

Rebutting the paulist meme that he didn't know what was being published under his banner.

I guess I should've added liar to the options as well.

There's no doubt Paul is trying to do some damage control at this point, and some inconsistencies have arisen, whether intentional or unintentional. I just feel they are very petty, and of all the mistakes we've made that we could have dug up on us over 20+ years in the spotlight, this is nothing. Unless one really feels they can conclude that he's racist based on this stuff. Which if he really was racist I think we'd be seeing some different policies he'd be touting.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

Rebutting the paulist meme that he didn't know what was being published under his banner.

I guess I should've added liar to the options as well.

Nice PA - unless you meant your postings on how he couldn't have had any clue of what actually went out under his banner. Maybe you can explain how he had time to write his missives but not take 5 minutes to scan the newsletter before it went to publishing?

Quote

I just feel they are very petty, and of all the mistakes we've made that we could have dug up on us over 20+ years in the spotlight, this is nothing.

Ask Herman Cain about that...of course, it's a different scenario since Cain's accusers only *had* accusations vs. Paul's newsletters.

Quote

Unless one really feels they can conclude that he's racist based on this stuff. Which if he really was racist I think we'd be seeing some different policies he'd be touting.

I understand that he's popular with stormfront, for what that's worth.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,633]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

Rebutting the paulist meme that he didn't know what was being published under his banner.

I guess I should've added liar to the options as well.

Nice PA - unless you meant your postings on how he couldn't have had any clue of what actually went out under his banner. Maybe you can explain how he had time to write his missives but not take 5 minutes to scan the newsletter before it went to publishing?

Quote

I just feel they are very petty, and of all the mistakes we've made that we could have dug up on us over 20+ years in the spotlight, this is nothing.

Ask Herman Cain about that...of course, it's a different scenario since Cain's accusers only *had* accusations vs. Paul's newsletters.

Quote

Unless one really feels they can conclude that he's racist based on this stuff. Which if he really was racist I think we'd be seeing some different policies he'd be touting.

I understand that he's popular with stormfront, for what that's worth.

Hey, at least RP is competent enough to get the signatures needed to get on the Virginia primary ballot, unlike some other candidates.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hey, at least RP is competent enough to get the signatures needed to get on the Virginia primary ballot, unlike some other candidates.

Instead of the usual Dem tactic of having ACORN canvass the cemeteries and kindergartens?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

I think you misinterpreted my post. There was no PA intended.

I meant to add liar to the list of things Ron Paul was guilty of. ie negligent, racist, or liar. I had made the post that either he was negligent or racist. You mentioned that you were only pointing that he should've known about the letters, hence I added liar to that list instead of just negligent or racist.

[nanook 1]

Quote

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-CNN-EXPOSES-Ron-Paul-s-anti-Semitic-remarks-and-links-to-NEO-NAZIS

From CNN

I wouldn't use this against Paul yet. There is some obvious chops and one can make anybody look bad if some things were taken out. I would like to see the whole interview.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think you misinterpreted my post. There was no PA intended.

I meant to add liar to the list of things Ron Paul was guilty of. ie negligent, racist, or liar. I had made the post that either he was negligent or racist. You mentioned that you were only pointing that he should've known about the letters, hence I added liar to that list instead of just negligent or racist.

My mistake - I apologize for the confusion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diverborg 0]

No worries.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Surely you realize how ridiculous this is. So 22 years ago someone else wrote some articles that RP says he didn't write and disavows. Move on. But, when debating him on the issues fails, its time to result to character attacks and this is the best they can come up with?

I wouldn't necessarily call that "storming out" either, like every headline read. He answered her same question the same way about 5 times and decided that was enough, and ended the interview and even said thank you at the end. For all we know he had other things to do.

Smear tactics at their best right here. Who cares though, this pales in comparison to the baggage and inconsistencies that Newt and Romney are carrying around, yet this is the one topping the headlines everywhere. "RP storms out of interview over questions about racist articles". Please.

If anybody isn't going to vote for RP based on this, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

I also love how they try to spin it like hes lying because he said he never read these specific articles back then, and in another sentence said he reads some of the publishings. So reading some of the publishings equates to reading the specific racial articles?

Then the quotes that they're hanging over his head that he didn't deny writing. Have you seen the full context of those articles? Showing that little snippet is about as dirty and slanderous as it can get. He was criticizing the justice system for ratios of prisoners and said based on their ratios that would lead us to conclude that 90-95% of black people are criminals (which obviously isn't the case). Gupta needs to be called out on that BS.

If Ron Paul was such a dangerous racist he wouldn't suggest pardoning all prisoners that are only in prison because of non-violent drug crimes.

We have all seen what happens to the candidate that hits number one?

Do you think the claims against Cain are any different?

I don't have any idea of the validity of this

But, You and I both know whats going to happen in the General election with this stuff

Can he survive it is the real question

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,633]

Quote

He is not electable

Seems he has the support of the white supremacists though. Stormfront, Militia of Montana, and American Free Press have endorsed him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

He is not electable

Seems he has the support of the white supremacists though. Stormfront, Militia of Montana, and American Free Press have endorsed him.

The Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam and the Weather Underground endorsed Obama. Did you have a point?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He is not electable

Seems he has the support of the white supremacists though. Stormfront, Militia of Montana, and American Free Press have endorsed him.

The Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam and the Weather Underground endorsed Obama. Did you have a point?

Good point. Finding some undesirable supporters is a well worn straw man.
In 1972 G. Gordon Liddy was going to hire some hippies to piss on the carpet for the cameras in McGovern's hospitality suite in the Watergate hotel. Bob Haldeman nixed the idea because he was slated to occupy that suite the next week for the Republican convention.

[kallend 1,633]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He is not electable

Seems he has the support of the white supremacists though. Stormfront, Militia of Montana, and American Free Press have endorsed him.

The Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam and the Weather Underground endorsed Obama. Did you have a point?

Obama didn't endorse them, however.

RP's old newsletters are very clearly racist and bigoted:
www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html
www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,1&id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

RP's old newsletters are very clearly racist and bigoted:

...thereby increasing his likeability factor in the GOP primaries.