zzz you have no clue what you're fighting. we lost the single worker household at the same time we went fiat.
your racism argument goes 180 against ron paul's main position. you're better than spam, don't be spam.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ron Paul on the defensive
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
zzz you have no clue what you're fighting. we lost the single worker household at the same time we went fiat.
your racism argument goes 180 against ron paul's main position. you're better than spam, don't be spam.
"Ron Paul is a compelling candidate in some respects--most notably, he wants to end the federal war on drugs--but it is no longer possible to dismiss his ties to the rhetoric of the white nationalist right. And his position on civil rights, which I initially viewed as a consistent (if naive) application of state's rights doctrine, can no longer be assessed independently from the horrible rhetoric contained in the newsletters that bear his name.
There are two possible explanations for this rhetoric: Either Ron Paul wrote or approved of vicious hate speech on a regular basis, to the extent that he was comfortable publishing it under his own name, or he published a newsletter under his own name for decades without bothering to read it. Believing the first explanation means believing that Ron Paul is a raving bigot; believing the second means believing that he is so sloppy with his own reputation that he's willing to put his name on anything, sight unseen. Either scenario disqualifies him from serving as President of the United States."
http://racerelations.about.com/b/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-a-racist.htm
There are two possible explanations for this rhetoric: Either Ron Paul wrote or approved of vicious hate speech on a regular basis, to the extent that he was comfortable publishing it under his own name, or he published a newsletter under his own name for decades without bothering to read it. Believing the first explanation means believing that Ron Paul is a raving bigot; believing the second means believing that he is so sloppy with his own reputation that he's willing to put his name on anything, sight unseen. Either scenario disqualifies him from serving as President of the United States."
http://racerelations.about.com/b/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-a-racist.htm
thank you, zzz, for taking this conversation past a talking point. great work.
My issue is with Paul's personal competency to be president.
I don't find him competent to govern and lead the executive branch.
Is he a racist? Who knows what is actually in his heart. We have seen plenty of congressmen and politicians lie impeccably until they get caught in a lie. Then if they are old enough like Paul or Reagan, and become "fuzzy" on the details, they simply say they can't remember...
Paul is a politician and he is not to be trusted any more than any other politician.
I don't find him competent to govern and lead the executive branch.
Is he a racist? Who knows what is actually in his heart. We have seen plenty of congressmen and politicians lie impeccably until they get caught in a lie. Then if they are old enough like Paul or Reagan, and become "fuzzy" on the details, they simply say they can't remember...
Paul is a politician and he is not to be trusted any more than any other politician.
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
zzz you have no clue what you're fighting. we lost the single worker household at the same time we went fiat.
your racism argument goes 180 against ron paul's main position. you're better than spam, don't be spam.
great point! too bad it's a fucking yahoo talking point. hit yahoo dood
"When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it."
This article is worth reading for those who have not already O.D.ed on the RuPaul Kool Aid...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it."
This article is worth reading for those who have not already O.D.ed on the RuPaul Kool Aid...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
myopia, maybe. or bias, just not sure.
it would help if you were an american, with interests tied more directly to the success of our communities and society.
having grown up here, this being my home, it's more difficult to accept the changes taking place than if i were a distant profiteer. no aggression intended, just a candid pov
Hmm, i dont know that americans truly appreciate the influence of political and economic decisions, trade agreements and similiar on the rest of the world.
In this instance, i agree with hydro, 2cents , and ratboy.
Of coure, im quite mad, but thats beside the point.
I dont see the arguements as mutually exclusive, not at all.
A "distant profiteer"? Nice term, but kinda ignores the reality of where us corporate profits come from.
Same arguement was levelled at britain in its heyday, im convinced to a degree that most people would hate for another marginally civilised country to fall to bits-yes its a matter of perspective, but hydro's assesment of inflactionary factors cant be overlooked, the gov's of the first world have been cooking the books since they realised they could get away with it.
Consumer price index's are calculated differently everywhere, but it's just around the corner they will exclude food products altogether to acheive a lower figure, and "deem" that to be realistic.
Near as i can tell, CPI was worthless already, without rent or fuel in it's basket of needful things.........CPI "matters" to the homeless, nobody else.
Ok, i got off topic there, but what will ron paul do, about bogus cost of living statistics?
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
"When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it."
This article is worth reading for those who have not already O.D.ed on the RuPaul Kool Aid...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
ok. i'm going to indulge you until it bores me.
it's a given than on the internet, there will be people with voice significantly louder than reason, and here we are
A. you think ron paul is a racist
B. functionally, ron paul supports the most racially progressive interpretation of economic equality in modern history
...if you have any questions, fire away
Quote from acronym:
Hmm, i dont know that americans truly appreciate the influence of political and economic decisions, trade agreements and similiar on the rest of the world.
In this instance, i agree with hydro, 2cents , and ratboy.
Of coure, im quite mad, but thats beside the point.
I dont see the arguements as mutually exclusive, not at all.
A "distant profiteer"? Nice term, but kinda ignores the reality of where us corporate profits come from.
Same arguement was levelled at britain in its heyday, im convinced to a degree that most people would hate for another marginally civilised country to fall to bits-yes its a matter of perspective, but hydro's assesment of inflactionary factors cant be overlooked, the gov's of the first world have been cooking the books since they realised they could get away with it.
Consumer price index's are calculated differently everywhere, but it's just around the corner they will exclude food products altogether to acheive a lower figure, and "deem" that to be realistic.
Near as i can tell, CPI was worthless already, without rent or fuel in it's basket of needful things.........CPI "matters" to the homeless, nobody else.
Ok, i got off topic there, but what will ron paul do, about bogus cost of living statistics?
we're on the same page. the stats seem cooked. i agree with hydro and ratboy on this.