DescentBB

[Offshoot from callmeslick's topic: 'a question for you Ron Paul fans']

Ron Paul is a long-time libertarian, and claims that he is a "constitutionalist".

callmeslick wrote:... If I choose to attack Ron Paul's 'ideals and fundamental beliefs', obviously I find fault with the man. Much fault, in my case. I think he's a hypocritical, somewhat old-school Southern racist, and most of all a complete loon with no clue about the outcome of his 'ideals' in a real world situation.

Where do you get "old-school Southern racist?"

A genuine question, but at the same time I challenge you on that point, assuming a less than convincing explanation of the accusation, I think you're wrong. Starting with the simplest argument I can think of: if he is a southern racist, he's doing a terrible job of it. Where is the racial twist? Where is he trying to put down minorities? He's been in public office a long time.


I have become a serious fan of Ron Paul. For me that only goes as far as his is what he says he is. I am a strongly independent thinker, and have maintained a fairly critical eye on Ron Paul's ideas since I first became aware of him, despite my immediate admiration of his character, which stands in such sharp contrast to so many politicians. I'll also add that I've never been a fan of libertarianism.

So there you go. I challenge you, and anyone else for that matter. If Ron Paul is not who he says he is, or doesn't want what he says he wants, then he's just another liar (or hypocrite), and I'd just as soon have out with it. Rip that sucker off like a band-aid! So what do you think about the man and what are the facts? Details! People can throw buzz-words and repeat drive-by news headlines anyplace.

RULES: Just one, please try to refrain from introducing topics or points if it is not convenient to pursue them satisfactorily in the present flow of your discussion. There will be ample opportunity to address them, and just because something is not addressed immediately does not make it any less valid. Not that I don't want to hear every point you may have, but shotgunning--as it were--a debate in progress does not serve the discussion.

inb4 newsletters written by Lew Rockwell.

The liberals can't accept that Obama failed horribly, was the worst president of all time, and now want to smear any conservative candidate they possibly can. Like a child who had his cookies taken away, and is walking around the house breaking things. Ron Paul is the ★■◆●ing man, and our last hope in politics.

I started making bumper stickers, actually,
"Ron Paul or Molotovs"

SilverFJ wrote:The liberals can't accept that Obama failed horribly, was the worst president of all time...

...oh wait...you were serious...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=210931

I like Ron Paul because he dares speak of things NONE of the others will.

vision wrote:inb4 newsletters written by Lew Rockwell.

So much dirt in the past he can't escape. He can deny and deny that he didn't write or approve all those statements in his newsletters all he wants. But at one time, he supported those statements because he had, or should have had, editorial control. They were his newsletters after all. If he didn't like what was said in a publication that had his name on it, he should have done something long ago, well before it became an inconvenient problem.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/988 ... -exclusive

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-pre ... s-20111227

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

tunnelcat wrote:So much dirt in the past he can't escape.

LOL, "so much dirt." Don't you mean "almost no dirt at all, and vastly less than any other politician?" He's apologized for this oversight many times over the years. This is all anyone's got on the guy as far as "dirt" goes -- some letters he didn't write published under his name. "Oh my, how awful!" Hilarious, really. (It's one of the reasons the media doesn't like him; he's a bloody boring politician). Ron Paul's whole political philosophy is anti-racist. He doesn't believe anyone should get special treatment for race or gender, and likewise opposes any discriminatory legislation.

Good luck to anyone trying to prove he is a racist. If you believe it, it's because you want to believe in spite of the facts.

Top Gun wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:The liberals can't accept that Obama failed horribly, was the worst president of all time...

...oh wait...you were serious...

Where has he succeeded? And don't give me any of that "he killed Obama" crap. That was'nt much more than a turkey shoot.

In any case, I see more of the heat coming from neocons than liberals. Liberals at least agree with him on social issues.

Ok, so he favors abortion rights, opposed partial birth abortions, supports limited restrictions on gun ownership and supports the death penalty. I'm not seeing how that differs to much from a 'neocon' and beside that., they are all dead issues for the most part, completely settled in court.
Now as far as Obama's financial and business skills, he just plain sucks.

I admit, it would appear that in almost all cases Ron Paul is who Ron Paul says he is... which is refreshing when it comes to politicians. But that's as far as just about anybody truly knows. Why? So many of is ideas and the things he proposes are either a wrong idea or a bad choice to take, that the general public thus far has not been able to take him seriously and therefore he's not become a real "front runner".

That's also why, thus far, he does not get my vote.

well, about sixteen posts in, I'll try to reply to the OP:

what I meant about 'old-school southern racist' probably sounds far harsher than I meant it. The facts are that Paul is a seventy-
something male from the South. As one who grew up spending a good deal of time in an area that had separate public restrooms and water fountains until well into the 1960's, I saw, heck, I was related to a lot of 'old school southern racists'. These are folks simply raised in an assumed White Supremicist world. They have no intention of being overtly negative toward folks of color, they simply assume they know better, live better and deserve to run the show. By using this descriptive for Paul, I am sort of dismissing any truly evil intent in his written record. Where he goes off the track and all can see it is when he makes statements(this one quoted from his post New Hampshire speech) like: "Over the past 100 years, all Americans have lost much of their Liberty". Try telling that to most African Americans, or even women, if you wish. What old Ron sees is a loss of percieved control by white males. It troubles him, I think, and shapes the political philosophies he espouses.

As for the other parts of my description, I will have no equivocation. The man's plan is dangerous, on many levels, in many different aspects. Still, the facts are that he NEVER polls over 20% among the voters as a whole, usually far lower than that. Thus, he is yet another wacky political footnote, when all is said and done. Oh, and the argument that the press has 'ignored' him? Rubbish. I can think of few on the national political stage who have had their position put out as thoroughly as has Pauls, due to the longterm process of running for national office in which he has engaged for the past 3 or 4 election cycles.

'preciate that.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and the argument that the press has 'ignored' him? Rubbish. ...

Due only to the long-term process (which has been this cycle, the last, and back in 88) and some exposure granted him due to the newsworthy nature of his controversial positions and his popularity, because for whatever reason there has been a very real pattern of passing him over in favor even of candidates that have not done as well. If it's not a conspiracy, then they all just happen to be ignoring him in much the same way, with a few exceptions, because listening to the radio during my ride to work had the candidates both in front and in back of Ron Paul in the primaries listed off and given attention. Ron Paul was mentioned literally once, and almost as an afterthought.

flip wrote:Ok, so he favors abortion rights, opposed partial birth abortions, supports limited restrictions on gun ownership and supports the death penalty. I'm not seeing how that differs to much from a 'neocon' and beside that., they are all dead issues for the most part, completely settled in court.

I was thinking more of the not-so-dead issues like gay marriage, torture, and the drug war.

Top:
Don't think I'm anti-Obama because I lean to the right. Bush was the second worst president of all time.

The GOP will whine and cry like children when they don't have their way. It's all just a stupid game they want us to play to keep us distracted from the real issue: They're both the same.

I believe that Ron Paul is the last chance for our freedom.

SilverFJ wrote:Top:
I believe that Ron Paul is the last chance for our freedom.

so long as 'our' refers to a very limited number of white males, you might be right.

SilverFJ wrote:Top:
Don't think I'm anti-Obama because I lean to the right. Bush was the second worst president of all time.

I wasn't laughing because I was thinking left or right or whatever. If you take even a cursory glance at US history, Obama is in the top half of US presidents pretty much by default. Hell, you could probably even stick Bush there. There are many presidents in our past who have done some incredibly boneheaded things.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:So much dirt in the past he can't escape.

LOL, "so much dirt." Don't you mean "almost no dirt at all, and vastly less than any other politician?" He's apologized for this oversight many times over the years. This is all anyone's got on the guy as far as "dirt" goes -- some letters he didn't write published under his name. "Oh my, how awful!" Hilarious, really. (It's one of the reasons the media doesn't like him; he's a bloody boring politician). Ron Paul's whole political philosophy is anti-racist. He doesn't believe anyone should get special treatment for race or gender, and likewise opposes any discriminatory legislation.

They're ALL carrying around truckloads of dirt and baggage. So I guess Republicans will have to choose between the one with the least baggage. Not a very palatable set of choices in my mind.

vision wrote:Good luck to anyone trying to prove he is a racist. If you believe it, it's because you want to believe in spite of the facts.

Let me ask you this. Would you want that garbage even published under your name if you didn't believe in of all that crap? Especially if you wanted to run for political office in the future?

Technically it's impossible to choose between the one with the least baggage. And no they're not ALL carrying around... Ron Paul has an extraordinary record next to the the rest of these guys, 20-year old newsletters notwithstanding.

tunnelcat wrote:Let me ask you this. Would you want that garbage even published under your name if you didn't believe in of all that crap? Especially if you wanted to run for political office in the future?

Look, you are going to believe whatever you want so I don't see why you're asking me questions you know the answer to. Ron Paul hired people to write a newsletter for him.* Those people screwed up. He apologized. Do you blame the CEO of McDonalds when you eat a bad cheeseburger? Ron Paul has never expressed any racist sentiments. But hey, don't let the truth stop you from holding your position. Just keep focusing on unreasonable expectations.


* Note: At the time the letters were written he had become disenchanted and left politics to practice medicine full time again. The newsletter was primarily concerned with investment advice. It's likely he never thought too much about his newsletters at all, let alone entertaining the thought of returning to office or running for president.

RuPaul....er Ron Paul's whiney voice is enough to make me not want to vote for him.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Technically it's impossible to choose between the one with the least baggage. And no they're not ALL carrying around... Ron Paul has an extraordinary record next to the the rest of these guys, 20-year old newsletters notwithstanding.

What, so we have to hold our nose and vote for the guy that stinks the least? They all stink so bad, it's like choosing between having to eat dog food or drinking sewer water. Paul's tainted like the rest of them, and crazy to boot. There's no good choice there at all.

vision wrote:Look, you are going to believe whatever you want so I don't see why you're asking me questions you know the answer to. Ron Paul hired people to write a newsletter for him.* Those people screwed up. He apologized. Do you blame the CEO of McDonalds when you eat a bad cheeseburger? Ron Paul has never expressed any racist sentiments. But hey, don't let the truth stop you from holding your position. Just keep focusing on unreasonable expectations.

So Ron Paul "apologized" for those newsletters. Well, he waited until now to do it. Back in 1996, he only said that he was "taken out of context". Uh, huh. Doesn't matter diddly. Whether he wrote the stuff or not, his name was on the newsletter, so he had ownership, and he waited until someone made a stink about it before he said squat either way.

woodchip wrote:RuPaul....er Ron Paul's whiney voice is enough to make me not want to vote for him.

Don't you mean his whiny Texas old grandpa voice?

tunnelcat wrote:So Ron Paul "apologized" for those newsletters. Well, he waited until now to do it. Back in 1996, he only said that he was "taken out of context". Uh, huh. Doesn't matter diddly. Whether he wrote the stuff or not, his name was on the newsletter, so he had ownership, and he waited until someone made a stink about it before he said squat either way.

Cool, keep focusing on the small stuff. That's what this country needs. Nevermind the fact this "racist" is the only person in either party who doesn't want to bomb the crap out of everyone. To me that says way more about his character than any alleged racist sentiments, but hey, you make the call. It's your vote, do what you want.

woodchip wrote:RuPaul....er Ron Paul's whiney voice is enough to make me not want to vote for him.

RuPaul

now there's a real change of, um, direction, for the nation!

tunnelcat wrote:What, so we have to hold our nose and vote for the guy that stinks the least? They all stink so bad, it's like choosing between having to eat dog food or drinking sewer water. Paul's tainted like the rest of them, and crazy to boot. There's no good choice there at all.

It's really hard for me to be properly critical of Ron Paul when all of the people trying to ground him are ignorant, kool-aid drinking, ... It puts me on the defensive. I seem to recall it being the same way with Bush before his second term.

Well TC, your guy isn't exactly going to bat for America, so I don't know how you plan to keep your sanity this election cycle without letting them do your thinking for you. Frankly unless Ron Paul can legitimately be accused of being overtly racist--which would put me off--I see him and his suggested (unsupported, unless you don't believe that he had no knowledge of the newsletters, as he claims) "old-school, southern racist" background as the EXTREME lesser of evils. He's certainly too smart to be "crazy", having predicted the housing crisis, along with a few other things. One thing that must be said of Ron Paul, a man who apparently throughout his career has exposed himself to criticism and mockery by espousing the things he believes to be true and accurate, without compromise--he is a man of conviction. Put that together with the way that he says what he will do, and does what he says, and it seems to me that you'd have to be some kind of fool (or some kind of fooled) to want to vote for any of these other candidates, or Obama, of whom it is certain the same cannot be said.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:So Ron Paul "apologized" for those newsletters. Well, he waited until now to do it. Back in 1996, he only said that he was "taken out of context". Uh, huh. Doesn't matter diddly. Whether he wrote the stuff or not, his name was on the newsletter, so he had ownership, and he waited until someone made a stink about it before he said squat either way.

Cool, keep focusing on the small stuff. That's what this country needs. Nevermind the fact this "racist" is the only person in either party who doesn't want to bomb the crap out of everyone. To me that says way more about his character than any alleged racist sentiments, but hey, you make the call. It's your vote, do what you want.

You're right there. He doesn't want to bomb the crap out of everyone in the world. His one plus point. But if he wants to be an isolationist, how's he going to deal with a world full of crazy despots that want to bomb us into oblivion? Ignore them and hope they go after someone else? And how is he going to deal with our huge military industrial complex that is used to spending what it wants, getting what it wants and doing what it wants in the world? He's not going to be an omnipotent dictator in chief that can tell the military to play nice his way or else. He hasn't answered those questions succinctly.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Well TC, your guy isn't exactly going to bat for America.....

Sergeant Thorne, Obama is NOT my guy. He's actually no different than any of the Republican candidates running right now, with the exception of Ron Paul. Obama's just another Washington insider and corporatist just like the rest of them.

tunnelcat wrote:You're right there. He doesn't want to bomb the crap out of everyone in the world. His one plus point. But if he wants to be an isolationist, how's he going to deal with a world full of crazy despots that want to bomb us into oblivion? Ignore them and hope they go after someone else?

"Isolationist" is a fun word warmongers like to use to make Paul seem like a crazy old man. He's anything but an isolationist. He wants to lift sanctions and embargoes and increase trade with all nations. That's hardly isolationism, it's the opposite really. How he deals with crazy despots that want to bomb us into oblivion is two fold - one, having a strong national defense (which doesn't necessitate having troops in every country) and two, reducing the reasons for wanting to bomb us (duh). It's not our job to be the world police, people resent us for that (those who are on the losing end that is).

tunnelcat wrote:And how is he going to deal with our huge military industrial complex that is used to spending what it wants, getting what it wants and doing what it wants in the world? He's not going to be an omnipotent dictator in chief that can tell the military to play nice his way or else. He hasn't answered those questions succinctly.

Well, as president he would be commander in chief. I'm pretty sure he can tell them what to do. That's his job. If they don't do what he wants, I guess that's the equivalent of a military coup, so I don't know what to tell you there.