Ron Paul: For a stronger, whiter America

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Nov 15, 2007.

?

Considering the Ron Paul presidential run ....

  1. That's it. I'm done with Ron Paul's sinking ship.

    6 vote(s)
    20.0%
  2. That's it. I'm jumping on the Ron Paul express!

    1 vote(s)
    3.3%
  3. I supported him before; I don't see how this changes anything.

    10 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. I opposed him before; ______ (fill in the blank)

    6 vote(s)
    20.0%
  5. Other; _____ (fill in the blank)

    7 vote(s)
    23.3%
  1. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    And in addition to my request for your source concerning Paul's supporters, do Republican voters not care about about gun rights? Lower taxes? Smaller government? Decreasing our national debt?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Yeah, and your doing a great job at it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    It's possible, as I acknowledge, but doubtful. Several colleagues of mine have interviewed high-up's or people located in other regions and they report pretty much the same thing: The NAACP does very little equality advocacy and operates a sort of political henchman for the black establishment.

    No, it hasn't — up to a point. However, post-Civil Rights and in terms of contemporary American life, I don't see the sort of inequalities your statement seems to nod toward (Jim Crow, Seperate but Equal, etc). Most of the inequalities afflicting blacks today are socio-economic issues that aren't institutionalized and maintained by a power structure that is vested in inequality, though I'm sure you would probably disagree. In fact, I would argue the NAACP actually harms the chances for racial equality in certain instances. One that immediately springs to mind is the vicious (and rankly dishonest) campaign it recently ran to ensure the outdated Voting Rights Act remains in place in Southern states. Blacks don't have a problem voting in the South, but you would never believe that if you listened to the NAACP.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2007
  8. jlocke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    I've also heard many people complaining that Ron Paul's embracing of some of the extremist conservative values may split the Republican vote, which can only help the Democrats. Thoughts?
     
  9. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
  10. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    I would just like to reiterate that those racist comments were not made by Paul himself, and that he personally has never said nor written anything that is racist.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    On profit, and other considerations

    (1) He attempted to profit (politically) from those statements.
    (2) When answering for the statements in 1996—see the article provided by Exhumed—Paul explained himself in a context that acknowledges point (1) above.

    Pulling back to the "He didn't write it himself" excuse now that the former argument—

    —is considered insufficient doesn't really do much to help his case.

    He should have denounced the 1992 comments the first time he was called out on them. Better yet, he should have prevented them from going out in the first place.

    Too late, too late.

    • • •​

    A Note for Exhumed

    Every account I've encountered so far looks back to 1992 newsletters circulated with some form of Paul's approval. Unless I get my hands on one of those documents, there won't be much of an MLA or Chicago-Turabian citation to write. In the meantime, though, we should take note that the Paul campaign is not saying the comments were never written or distributed. Admittedly, the closer we get to the originals, the better. Hopefully, someone will cough up a PDF or something.

    Also, good eye on the '96 article. Thank ye.
     
  12. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Too late for who? Obviously not for Paul's supporters, a number of of whom are non-white and don't think Paul is a racist in any way, shape or form. And since you're just repeating the same point over and over, I'll just copy and paste what I had to say earlier about them.

    "1. If you'd read the article, you'd see that Ron Paul was very loosely affiliated with the newsletter in question. By claiming that this was a personal attempt on his part to profit from racism based on that is very Karl Rove-y of you.

    2 and 3. While I admit I would have liked it better if he'd simply rejected the comments from the get-go, I can understand that people make mistakes. I can understand that his campaign aides told him not to do so. And I can also look at his history in politics and see that this doesn't even remotely resemble anything else he's said in the past 30 years."
     
  13. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    Wow, I wonder if he's related to Jeff ....

    Okay, okay. Seriously ... thank you for finding that. My first perusal doesn't help Paul's case, but I'll read through it again.
     
  15. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    It wasn't meant to help his case. Like I've already said, I, along with the rest of Paul's supporters, have come to dismiss these articles and continue to support Paul because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread.

    I wish you'd stop making it seem like these are his words, or that he ever endorsed them. That he did not reject them at the time is true, and unfortunate, but that's the only point to be made.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    He didn't reject them at the time, and thus profited politically. That's my big objection. Once one has reaped the benefits, it's disingenuous to distance oneself from such an issue by saying, "But I didn't write it". He's already received and spent the political capital; quite obviously, such remarks won him some dubious support. Regardless of his current defense, such dubious endorsements present his campaign with a challenge.
     
  17. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Distance himself from the issue? He's claimed responsibility for his mistake and regrets that it happened. The fact that he didn't write is just that, a fact.

    And just for you, I went ahead and visited ********** to see the endorsement. Do you know why people there endorse him? It's because of illegal immigration, the war, the economy, foreign policy. The same reasons I support him. In fact some posters there actually blasted Paul because race isn't an issue for him. So why should Paul not take their support? He's already publicly denounced racism. If those groups still choose to endorse him, then it's not because of race.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm I'm disappointed tiassa. Racism? Ho hum. How much was the public outcry at the Watson gaffe? It sure did not affect his book signing any, or his reception by his peers, public appearances of outraged propriety notwithstanding.

    Here's something more fun to debate:

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/15/092742.php
     
  19. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    That right there discredits this person completely. Ron Paul, a constitutionalist, thinking the President has the power to set the budget and dissolve departments by himself? Please.

    He would like to see a number of those departments removed, but he can't do that without public support to influence congress. His becoming president, should that happen, will be a sign of that support. If the influence soon follows, and he convinces the public and the congress that those departments should be done away with, then he'll get his way. But that's the only way he'll get his way. Paul has stated this quite clearly during interviews. And anyone who takes Paul seriously and isn't interested in a quick piece of slander against him knows this.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Actually, what the author is trying to say is that no Congress in its right mind would dissolve the departments. i.e. he is exposing the Ron Paul rhetoric for what it is.
     
  21. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    If Paul is elected president, public support will possibly be strong enough for congress to be swayed into voting away or diminishing such departments. For example, there are many people who feel that education should be handled completely at the state level.
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I doubt you'll find many scientists to support that, for one. And I seriously doubt anyone in the US would support doing away with Homeland Security or Income Tax entirely. Like the presently elected Congress, there will always be reasons for not doing what the people want.

    I haven't been paying too much attention to Ron Paul to be honest, but anyone who ignores socio-political realities for a 200 year old idea of running the state should move to Saudi Arabia, IMO.
     
  23. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Of course, but it's not as if people are asking for these things on a whim. Paul has reasons for wanting to downsize or removing certain departments. If those reasons are intelligent and Paul is persuasive enough to convince Congress of their merit, then they'll go though. Contrary to popular opinion, he's not some nut that'll cut departments just for the sake of cutting them.
     

Share This Page