Because Paul is honest, no one can deny that. It's a bit difficult to deal with it when we're discussing it, but like I said, I agree with Rashmon - I don't actually think he's a racist. I just think that he's displayed stunning incompetence in his approach with it, and that's a very bad sign for a president. If I had to cite any big change, it's probably the fact that I'm much, much more nationalistic compared to 2008 - you attacked my statement on the importance of protecting American hegemony, and ironically given everything I've said to you, I know most people would think it is crazy. But nationalism and loyalty to the United States to me trumps everything else. He had no problem voting for a commerative coin for the Boy Scouts. Where in this 1996 article does Paul deny he wrote them? Daily Kos I realize that probably isn't the most reliable thing, but I found another link at Free Republic, so two polar opposite sites have similar news. I remember that conservatives did begin to get pissed off at Bush around the time of the Harriet Miers incident and Katrina disaster, and it was definitely there by 2007, when Bachmann took office. Now, I guess Paul is somewhat more credible given how long he's been there as opposed to Bachmann. But if Bachmann kept up her religious ranting for another 20 years, does that somehow give her integrity? I guess maybe I'm being precise with words, but I don't hold that a guy who's more consistent in his beliefs necessarily possesses higher ethical standards compared to one who doesn't. You can find lots of people out there who'll fanatically hold on to a set of beliefs no matter what - but if their beliefs aren't good, then the fact that've held on to the beliefs doesn't make that better. Is Mitt Romney acting awkwardly on the campaign trail supposed to be something that shocks me?
He is more honest than the other candidates (Obama included), but he is certainly not above some disingenuous commentary: This article very well articulates my problems with Paul. He is consistent -sure, but also callous and incredibly naive.
you supported paul in 2008 b/c he is honest? thats it? it had nothing to do w/ his policy positions? ive never heard of anyone who endorses a candidate to the degree that you did w/out supporting any of their basic policy positions. i think he has handled all these bogus charges pretty well. and like his "black best friend" nelson lender said, "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context". what you advocate goes far beyond "loyalty" to the united states. hegemony = imperialism or rule by force - you are advocating imposing ourselves on other countries and dictating things to them by military force...that is exactly what leads to war and acts of terrorism. it is a very dangerous, selfish and arrogant way to conduct foreign policy. there are consequences to your way of thinking and they are not good. a commemorative coin is not a congressional medal. do you really not see the difference there? come on now...i know you are not that dense. and ill ask again - are the congressmen who did not want to cough up $100 for rosa parks racist? i think what ron paul did was admirable. he was willing to put up his own money to buy rosa parks a medal - we need more politicians who think like that. i thought we were discussing the xeroxed anonymous newsletter. he denied he wrote those. as for the writings cited in your link, id like to see the context they were written in and know who exactly wrote them. those writings are totally out of line w/ his 40 years of public statements and his political record so again, im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. every politician has skeletons in their closet, but if all you have is a 20 year old newsletter than you dont really have much. like most of the other charges, there is probably more to this story than discussed. and im puzzled as to why someone who was kicked out of city council meetings for protesting mlk day would support someone who voted to make mlk day a national holiday. im also puzzled as to how such a racist continues to get reelected in a district w/ a large black population. or why NAACP leaders come out and say he is not racist. again, these guilt by association games can be played w/ all politicians, and w/ most, to a greater degree of culpability. whatever allegations there are against paul, the fact is that in politics he has advocated many positions that show him to be less 'racist' than many of his peers - he supported reducing mandatory minimum sentencing laws which disproportionally affected blacks, he supported the right for muslims to build their center near the WTC (many democrats were against it), he voted to make MLK day a national holiday and he offered $100 out of his own pocket to give rosa parks a medal. i find it shocking that people who support someone who acts like that around black people would go around accusing others of racism.
the problems yall say would occur w/ paul have already happened under republicans and democrats. a paul presidency would be a good start in taking away the corporate welfare and unfair advantages that the 1% has accrued under reagan-bush-clinton-bush-obama.
You've really got to find new Paul talking points. This one is painfully old and defunct. More to the point, please show me how Paul's vision would improve the situation for the 99%. The article clearly outlines why this is not true. Do you have any actual substantial rebuttal to offer?
Unless he and his campaign spokesman were lying, it sounds like he wrote them: Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time." ... A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime. Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. Both Paul and his spokesman were directly addressing these writings and didn't say anyone else wrote them - just that they were out of context. I'd be curious on the context as well, to get these wonderful nuggets: Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." ... "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," ... "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." ... Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation ""would explain certain mysteries" about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia. ""None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting," he said. I hadn't heard of any of this before, and I don't think Ron Paul is racist, but it does sounds like he was playing to a base of crazies, and those crazies continue to be a portion of his base today, though he has normal people as well. But he's the guy that the conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truther types, etc all support - I don't think that's by accident.
I gave one reason. As I said, I held to the libertarian concept that most government facilities can be done by the private sector and I supporterd Iraq withdrawal ( currently a moot point as Obama's doing that anyways.) I would only observe that hegemony needs military force, it does not mean constant and pointless war. I'd argue that Iraq was in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what I view hegemony as - the United States fought a war not out of strategic interests, but in the name of spreading democracy. Similarly, we're concerned about the lives of Afghanis for some reason, and so it's why continue to fight and die there rather than for actual geopolitical purposes. Nixon ( and I'll easily admit I greatly admire the man), managed to easily change American geopolitical capabilities without firing a single shot through his dealings with China, after all. I thought we were discussing Ron Paul Political Report, which is where you hear a lot of the crazy racist stuff, like fleet-footed blacks and 95 percent of DC blacks are criminals . And the point still stands - if Paul didn't write those things in my link, why didn't he say so? No. I actually don't. It's not like these coins were being distributed to the public. They were sold, and the proceeds given to the Boy Scouts. Secondly, going back to the Washington example - you claimed that medals given to a political figure are fine under the Constitution, but not civilians. Where does the Constitution claim that? As for your 100 dollar thing? Talk is cheap - Paul's not a complete idiot, he knew that bill would be passed regardless of what he said. Hell, as has been observed, he could have taken the money he got from Stormfront and used it for some anti-racist project over the course of his campaign. That would have sent a strong message that he's not a racist. No, because there's a real difference between acting like a idiot around people you're not used to dealing with ( and we've seen Mitt do that plenty of times, especially back in 2008), and sponsoring a newsletter that calls blacks criminals. Your first point is irrelevant, because his support had nothing to do with the fact that it disproportionally affected blacks, but because his ideology says so. If whites were as badly affected by the War on Drugs as blacks, Paul would still oppose the War on Drugs. And just because you support ending the War on Drugs, which happens to hurt blacks more, doesn't mean you're not a racist. Your third point isn't true. He didn't. I already addressed the last point.
I'm trying to figure out who under reagan-bush-clinton-bush-obama all abolished antitrust laws, the SEC, cut taxes on the super-rich(oh, I know who did that...guess who voted for it too..never mind on that one), abolished minimum wage, child labor laws, consumer protection laws, the federal reserve, implemented the gold standard, and did all the crazy insane stupid randian wet-dream things that the Paulistas want to implement. Oh yes, that's right - none of them. Paul's plan to roll back laws to the age of plutocracy is literally without parallel in modern politics - it's literally also about as anti-competitive and non-free market as you can get.
Sam, jo mama is a nice guy except for this blind spot he has with regard to Mister Paul. Try not to be too rough on him. I know it's difficult.
Young people are prone to idealism, it takes some living to become world weary and understand everything is a compromise. The idealism can be libertarian or socialist or religious or atheist or American or misanthropic, but they usually go all in.
They see things differently, but still reach the same conclusion. The youth believe in humanity's inherent goodness and ability to make all right and just, as such they want little interference from a governing body in the naive hope humans can have a fiar and just world with no control. Paul's government is outdated, and comes from a world view straight out of the 18and 19th century.
lol Are you for sure you didn't mean to put a after Islamic terrorism as being the greatest threat the world has eve faced. Given this alleged greatest threat in the history of the world, I assume you are trying to sign up to send your ass to Afghanistan or wherever you think the fight is. Or at least just trying to curtail civil liberties as home and go undrcover as a new convert to Islam to catch some local Islamic terrorists? at a mosque in Houston
Proclaiming victory and that I run away is comforting to you I guess. Talking about running away, it is hard to debate whenever anyone ever mentions a libertarian stand on an issue, you claim that you, as the pure embodiment of libertariansim I guess, don't subscribe to it. Another common dodge by libertarians when confronted with real world data of policy disasters generated by extreme deregulation of financial markets for instance is to claim that in the libertarian ideal in the sky which has never existed (e.g so little govenrment that has not existed since the hunter/gatherer stage) the policy would have been a great success. Alan Greenspan an early follower of Ayn Rand (hopefully you can agree she was a libertarian) did at one point say that financial markets could not be totally self regulated.
Everyone has different criterion and reasons to why they back a certain candidate. I'd like to point out that whatever most of these candidates say during their campaign is irrelevant. Why? Because their policies flip flop and none of them have held true to their word when they get to office. Remember Obama and his "change"? Please. Politicians say whatever to get votes and then have their own agenda. Their motivation for office is for power, greed, or other selfish reasons. In my opinion backed by some research, the only person running for presidency that is not a Washington sell-out is Paul. I may not totally agree with 100% of his platform but I do know that he is a truly honest and good man. Someone who is intelligent and lives by a moral code. I would rather back a competent person that I trust rather than a salesman with charm. Try to look beyond the propaganda and rhetoric and look at the candidates for who they are. Actions over the course of their lifetime speaks much greater than what they memorize or read on the teleprompter. Aren't you all tired of the corruption and mismanagement of the country by those we select to make important decisions for us? Do you want to remain in this broken down status quo or am willing to clean house and start afresh? On a side note, this sounds a lot like the dilemma that the Rox are going through. Keep patching things to remain in mediocrity or make a bold step toward a better future.
it is the 99% who have been subsidizing the enrichment of the 1% for the better part of 30 years. true, paul isnt calling for hand-outs and freebies for all...rather a fair, level playing field free of government intervention. a paul presidency would be a good start in taking away the welfare that corporations have enjoyed and force them to succeed and fail on their own merits. and i have heard him state several times that eliminating welfare and aid to the poor is not a priority - he is more concerned w/ government spending when it comes to militarism, foreign aid, stimulus packages for failing corporatings, ect. as far as deregulation, i think you know that ive said before that im not against deregulating everything as many libertarians want. and ive also said that for me it is not as key an issue as civil liberties, foreign interventionism, war, ending corporate welfare and out-of-control spending...and on all those issues i feel paul is spot on. of course we need regulation on certain things, but as we have discussed before, the current regulatory system is hopelessly corrupt - too often the "regulations" simply transfer liability from the corporations to the government (ie: the people - ie: the 99%) the regulators and their lobbyists write their own laws and our elected officials pass them, often w/out even reading. we have oil industry regulators snorting coke and having sex w/ the very people they are supposed to be regulating. we have congress putting a $75 million dollar cap on the amount that oil companies are liable for in the event of a spill. as i have said before, that was a disincentive for BP to get their act together...and how did that work out? and the military is our nations largest polluter and they are exempt from regulation. and we have the obama administration allowing waivers for obamacare for "small business" like mcdonalds. how is that fair? the revolving door b/t the corporate world/wall street and our government needs to end - we need to get the lobbyists and people w/ ethical issues out of positions of power. candidate obama promised to do just that, but president obama has shown that he is no different than his predecessors. he has goldman sachs executives and tax cheats running our economy. and what about GE - they have literally bribed our elected officials w/ tens of millions to rewrite the tax laws so that not only do they not pay taxes...they get a rebate! and their CEO goes to work for obama on his jobs council. i understand that many of these arguments are philosophical and even if put into practice, would not change things overnight. even if he got elected, ron paul is not going to change things substantially in 4 years. but imo, the status quo is unsustainable and we need a radical philosophical change in the way our government is run. and as ive said, the solution is not going to be found in R's or D's - both parties are beyond gone. when i vote it is only 3rd party - if it is b/t an R or a D i will leave it blank. as for the 99% and the whole occupy wall street movement, this is exactly what it should be about. the focus should be on the influence that corporations have on our government and the fact that our elected officials put the interest of multi-national corporations and wall street over the people (99%) - its not about forgiving student loan debts or giving people hand-outs or some kid w/ a nose ring and purple dreadlocks wondering why he cant get a job. and like i said, its going to be a gradual shift, but i do believe a ron paul presidency would do alot to resolve these problems ive listed and get us on the right path.
This is really funny coming from the side that used to arrest people at rallies for wearing the wrong type of t-shirt
im 36 - far from "young" - but i am an idealist. and as for the "young people", they go around making statements like this... call me an idealist, but i believe every nation/people have a right to self-determination. i do not like when my government props up brutal dictators who kill thousands and thousands of their own people. i do not like when my government overthrows democratically elected governments b/c they might lean socialist. i do not believe that we have a right nor a duty to impose ourselves on other countries against their will. now get off my lawn!
not proclaiming victory - just pointing out that your post about the koch brothers funding ron paul was garbage. ive never read ayn rand - i was aware of atlas shrugged since college, but i only learned about her and her work from clutchfans and people like you obsessing over her. ok.
