How does Ron Paul not have to answer for this garbage? Why does he think he can just shrug it off? It has his name in huge letters at the top of it. Edit: Actually he has given his answer, which is to say it's not important, he wasn't involved for 10 years, but I don't see why anyone would find that satisfactory.
Ron Paul did not write the articles, disavowed them, personally doesn't believe in race - they were actually written 2 decades ago by someone else. And, besides the point - he still personally apologized, again. Now, this is the interesting thing. Ron Paul is accused of being a chicken hawk by the right, but is the only one to have volunteered and fought in a war and gets the most support from the troupes. Ron Pual is accused of being racist yet has clearly stated he does not believe in race, and will repeal the drug laws (which are used to unfairly target black Americans) and he gets the most support from African Americans. I think the person who wrote those racist remarks was really pissed off at the way America was, and still is, degenerating and fount it intellectually easy to pick on a vulnerable segment of society. One thing I would agree with is the sentiment that welfare breeds welfare. Having grown up on welfare, $40 a week, I know it does.
Well, let's be honest, that is Paul's claim. But he has no corroborating proof. Those articles/letters were written, published and represented as coming from Ron Paul and one even bears his signature. Two, 20 years ago maybe a long time for a 20 year old. But Ron Paul is 76 years old. So they were published when he was in his 50's. Political ideology is normally set by the fifth decade of life. Yes Ron Paul has disowned the racist documents. But he has not disavowed the support from racist groups (e.g. Neo Nazi's). http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/u...sts-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html I don't know about those accusing Paul of being a chickenhawk. But if that is so, it is kind of ironic. Because I can't think of any bigger chickenhawks than the leadership of the Republican Party (e.g. George Junior, Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et al.). I agree with Ron Paul on his stance on drugs and the solution to every social ill is not a law. The issue of welfare is complex and there is no simple solution. But I really don't think welfare is one of the critical problems faced by the nation today. We need investment, better education and some serious financial reforms and most importantly better educated more informed voters and meaningful election and ethics reform in Washington.
Is Ron Paul conspiracy-minded? During Christmas dinner, we were discussing the conspiracy theory about the gold at Fort Knox. Is this complete nonsense? :shrug: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2647589&postcount=8 Is Gold in Fort Knox Real? Ron Paul Wants to Know Ron Paul REQUEST AUDIT FOR FORT KNOX Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 1 Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 2 Fort Knox, U.S. Gold Bullion Depository, Pt. 3
Lol. Why would you disavow support? This guilt by association is complete bs imo. This is like saying... If a Democrat works with a Republican to get liberal laws pass. They should break that alliance because the Republican is against woman's choice (racist?).. You get as much support as you can for YOUR IDEALS. You don't give a shit about what THEIR ideal is because you are working towards your goals, not theirs. It doesn't matter why the racist supports you. Does a racist have a right to vote on things other race than? Or does him being a racist immediately means that he has no other concerns except race? So just because someone is a racist they don't want a good economy? They don't care about anything? Using labels to discredit someone is pretty idiotic.
I don't have clue what that rambling nonsense was all about. The fact remains, Ron Paul has disavowed the racists writings that were published under his name in the 90's and for which he financially profited. Believe it or not, that is the fact of the matter. What remains is that Paul has not disavowed the support of Neo Nazi groups that fervently support him. Individuals in evaluating the suitability of Ron Paul as POTUS will evaluate the facts and make their decisions.
To me the fact that people even think about this is stupid. When Obama and that reverend came up. I was thinking 'why does this matter'. All that matters is the person you're voting for and what views they hold. Seems more like sensationalism, and media making a controversy out of every damn thing. Oh well.. Oh and how much money did he make off of racism vs actual gold/stock advise. What percentage of material was 'racist', to put things into perspective. Because it would be a far cry to say that people subscribed to his newsletters to read 1 racist line if 99% of those newsletters were actual monetary/investment advice, in which case one has to question the notion that 'he made money off of racism' (which is what you are suggesting). And on a personal note: A civil libertarian can't be a racist, IMO. I don't think anyone else in the Republican party has defended liberty more than Ron Paul. Others were essentially in favor of religious profiling of Muslims. And supposing he IS a racist. A racist who will protect my civil liberties, freedoms, rights is way better than a non-racist who takes away my civil liberties, rights, and freedoms (Obama, Bush, etc...).. Because this racist simply has a bad opinion of me but he isn't imposing or taking away my rights. The so-called non-racists like Bush/Obama are in fact against my very person as they affect my freedom they are taking my rights away. To me they are far more 'racist' and dangerous than a civil libertarian racist. But I'm sure the emotional ties with the racist history of this country will not allow many people to see 'past the labels'. One only holds a opinion against me. The other is actually taking action against me. I'd prefer the 'opinion-holder' over someone who takes actions against me, anytime, anywhere.
That's like saying "a conservative can't be racist because their party says they're not racist" or "a liberal can't be racist because liberals support civil rights for minorities." Both can, of course, be racist. Indeed, anyone can, despite the political party they belong to.
I tried to clarify that by saying even 'if they were racist' (as defined)- they are less dangerous than a 'non-racist' who takes away civil liberties and rights..
Right. But if the alternative to that is a libertarian who abolishes the CDC, FAA and EPA, and as a result thousands die of food contamination, waterborne disease, airline crashes and emphysema - then the libertarian is arguably more dangerous to the US.
Not really but even if we presume your premise then we would be making a further assumption that anything not done by the Federal government will also not be done by the States. Getting rid of a Federal EPA doesn't mean there can't be a 'state EPA' if the state chooses. In fact in Seattle restaurants have to use those biodegradable/composite plates and stuff. I don't think the Federal Gov told them to make this law. Also not having an FAA doesn't mean that Airlines and Airports can't come together and form a system. They all have a vested interest in the aviation process to run as smoothly as possible. The idea that only Federal government can do is pretty much bullshit. Other options- State or Private- are always there that can do those things. And personally my personal freedoms, civil liberties, and rights are far more important to me than the airplanes running. Anyone who attacks me as a person is far more dangerous than someone who attacks infrastructure. I'm pretty sure you care more about having a right to a just trial and not being imprisoned indefinitely without trial more than you care about getting on a plane. Because if you don't even have the right to justice then there is no guarantee you would even have the opportunity of boarding a plane. Everything else you do is dependent on civil liberties and freedom.
So EPA doesn't deal with the environment? And those Seattle laws don't deal with the environment? Ya totally unrelated I know. We already have the EPA if property rights being enforced Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So I'm not sure we need an agency on the federal level. And yes lets try it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Seeing as how 786 substantially altered his message: Strawman hypothesis. I did not claim this, nor is it implied by my statement. Strawman hypothesis. I did not claim this, nor is it implied by my statement. Strawman hypothesis. I did not claim this, nor is it implied by my statement. What I said was, it's irrelevant. What happens in other places is the central government proclaims some minimum standard, and the state level authorities institute the neccessary bylaws to make it happen. Let's not, we've just come down that road, although I would be unsurprised to find out that you're to young to understand what I mean.
More like property rights were never enforced environmentally, and the whole awareness and movement of climate change is rather recent, and directed primarily towards the fed gov (where the money is). So nah, we've not tried it yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are private 'standards' created as well. And how saying States can try to deal with the environment themselves (the purpose of EPA) and giving an example (in Seattle) is substantially 'changing' my message is beyond me. In fact I don't know why we're even talking about this since my initial comments were about racism and civil liberties. Seems to me that someone changed the topic on me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Right, because property rights and environmental issues have never ever ever crossed paths, not once... Who said anything about climate change? I certainly didn't. All I mentioned was federal environmental standards (or something along those lines). You do know that climate change isn't the only environmental problem around today right? There are other things, like air quality standards. Also, climate change is not a new idea, it was first suggested in the 1890's, and the fundamental physics that implied its existence were already several decades old by that point. Yes, we have already tried the unregulated approach, and guess what, it didn't work - we wound up with things like Chromium VI in the groundwater in California. Irrelevant.
Correct. But a California EPA cannot regulate emissions from Nevada even if those emissions are killing Californians. Thus the primary function the EPA performs (protection of Americans from pollutants) would not occur - and a lot more people would die. Yes, they could. But again without any one national standard making safe aircraft would be much more difficult. Why would Boeing in Seattle bother to design for safe use of airports in Nebraska? And why would Nebraska change their runway configuration just to deal with one manufacturer, when 99% of the time their planes do just fine? It's a lot cheaper to not burden the noble taxpayers of Nebraska with expensive runway and airspace control modifications just to deal with one uncaring manufacturer. Nonsense. They have one interest - which is to make as much money as possible. If they can increase their fatality rate by 5% and increase their profits by 10% - then they do. If they don't, another airline outcompetes them and they go out of business. Agreed. However if you think that states can set and enforce countrywide standards, you're dreaming. Again, why would a California TV station bother to limit their emissions if the only people who lose TV/internet/cellphone/wifi coverage are people in Arizona? Why would California give a shit? How have you been "attacked?"
