Ron Paul: underestimated, overestimated, or both?

kayman

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
1,344
Media
26
Likes
1,184
Points
358
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

You have to look at both sides of coin.. please READ before you DISCUSS! A very well written and eye-opening article.

Uh yeah, read it but still don't like him. Anyone that shows animus towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the usage of the Interstate Clause or LGBT people in general isn't an ally of people of color or social egalitarianism. So yeah...
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How is let Israel be twisted into anti-semitism? He was the ONLY member of Congress to support Israel in its bombing of Iraq in 1981. Why? Because that is israel's business.

Funny he is labled an anti-semite when his feelings are lock-step with what Israel's PM said to Congress in the spring...

And if you think Ron Paul is a racist, this is a very interesting article.

'NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist'

And funny how the most support among african-americans for a gop candidate is ron paul. He wants to get rid of federal guidelines on drugs and points out that the history of drug regulation in this country comes from racism.

Paul agrees with the vast majority of the civil rights act. However, where does any government have the right to tell any private business or private property owner how to run its business. If I am a store owner, I should have the right to serve or not serve anyone I want. While it is morally wrong and I would be disgusted at a store who would refuse to serve anyone based on skin color, what LEGAL right does anyone have to do anything to the owner and tell him how to run his private business.

I am fat. I have been all my life. Statistics say I am very likely to be discriminated against all my life rather harshly for this. Where is the law protecting me? Guess what? I dont want it. It sucks if someone makes a snap judgment about me when I enter because of my weight in an interview and I do not get a job, but whatever.

And personally, it is hard for me to take any "civil right" or "hate crimes" legislation seriously when the US refused to investigate one of the most slam-dunk cases of civil rights violation in the history of this country. I am sure it had nothing to do with the three INNOCENT falsely accused, with a DA who ran with it who even said "were f*****" to those around him before going into the grand jury room, were white.

Yes, the only "we cannot go back to the gold standard." Because fiat money worked so well for Germany in the 1920s or the Romans just before the fall of its empire.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Paul and his stupid son (senator from KY, and i dont mean jelly or lubricant, either) are homophobes, racists , anti semites and haters of immigrants ( legal or not). why on earth would we return the white house to these hateful morons? this is america, the land of diversity, from where we get our strength. this is not AMERIKA, land of the neo nazi facists that are concerned mainly with white boy paranoia. REELECT OBAMA IN 2012 AND SEND THESE CLOWNS BACK TO THE CIRCUS TENT.

Prove it. I bet you can't. Re-elect Obama in 2012 and kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye...our president is a puppet, once again
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
If we overlook all the faults and rumored behaviors which are less than complementary and strip away the other accomplishments we have some major problems.

The fellow is first and foremost just too old. Like it or not we have to look at the pressure of the job and resulting stress. You would not be electing a President, but setting up a situation for a very elderly puppet and a situation where his competency could be called into question placing a total dark horse V.P. into the highest office in this country. That was one of the largest problems with the age of John McCain back in 2008. If McCain were not have survived his term in office it would have been "Madam President Palin", and for many voters her problems and questionable job performance in Alaska was just not worth tanking the chance. I would like to think that the GOP learned from that situation.

The second problem is like many of the GOP he does not understand what his job as President is. He is an Executive carrying out the job only functioning as a safety valve. He is not a legislator and as President he cannot make, cannot write and cannot enact any new type of law or structure so the entire rest of his rhetoric is absolutely worthless.

The man is also not an "insider" in that he would not in fact get good support from his own party. The reasons for his lack of support from others within the GOP is up to debate by others. His ideas are off the chart, his ability to execute them is zero and people simply do not understand the job he is campaigning for if they think he can do even 10% of what he talks about.

It could be entertaining: Watching the GOP roadblock their own candidate. . . . .
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
If we overlook all the faults and rumored behaviors which are less than complementary and strip away the other accomplishments we have some major problems.

The fellow is first and foremost just too old. Like it or not we have to look at the pressure of the job and resulting stress. You would not be electing a President, but setting up a situation for a very elderly puppet and a situation where his competency could be called into question placing a total dark horse V.P. into the highest office in this country. That was one of the largest problems with the age of John McCain back in 2008. If McCain were not have survived his term in office it would have been "Madam President Palin", and for many voters her problems and questionable job performance in Alaska was just not worth tanking the chance. I would like to think that the GOP learned from that situation.

The second problem is like many of the GOP he does not understand what his job as President is. He is an Executive carrying out the job only functioning as a safety valve. He is not a legislator and as President he cannot make, cannot write and cannot enact any new type of law or structure so the entire rest of his rhetoric is absolutely worthless.

The man is also not an "insider" in that he would not in fact get good support from his own party. The reasons for his lack of support from others within the GOP is up to debate by others. His ideas are off the chart, his ability to execute them is zero and people simply do not understand the job he is campaigning for if they think he can do even 10% of what he talks about.

It could be entertaining: Watching the GOP roadblock their own candidate. . . . .

Funny how following the words of our founding fathers is kooky and extreme.

Funny how fiscal restraint is kooky and extreme.

I dont know how putting the onus on Congress to do its job is extreme. The executive branch is way too powerful. It is the most pwerful branch and the founders wanted the legislative branch, the people's branch, to be the strongest.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The fellow is first and foremost just too old.

So you are ageist.

The second problem is like many of the GOP he does not understand what his job as President is. He is an Executive carrying out the job only functioning as a safety valve. He is not a legislator and as President he cannot make, cannot write and cannot enact any new type of law or structure so the entire rest of his rhetoric is absolutely worthless.

The GOP? Every President runs on what they are going to do or push for if they are elected, regardless of party. You cannot deny that President's bring with them an agenda and as their parties leader push for cooperation through the Congress.

The man is also not an "insider" in that he would not in fact get good support from his own party. The reasons for his lack of support from others within the GOP is up to debate by others. His ideas are off the chart, his ability to execute them is zero and people simply do not understand the job he is campaigning for if they think he can do even 10% of what he talks about.

So you're also a pessimist.
 

kayman

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
1,344
Media
26
Likes
1,184
Points
358
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
How is let Israel be twisted into anti-semitism? He was the ONLY member of Congress to support Israel in its bombing of Iraq in 1981. Why? Because that is israel's business.

Funny he is labled an anti-semite when his feelings are lock-step with what Israel's PM said to Congress in the spring...

And if you think Ron Paul is a racist, this is a very interesting article.

'NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist'

And funny how the most support among african-americans for a gop candidate is ron paul. He wants to get rid of federal guidelines on drugs and points out that the history of drug regulation in this country comes from racism.

Paul agrees with the vast majority of the civil rights act. However, where does any government have the right to tell any private business or private property owner how to run its business. If I am a store owner, I should have the right to serve or not serve anyone I want. While it is morally wrong and I would be disgusted at a store who would refuse to serve anyone based on skin color, what LEGAL right does anyone have to do anything to the owner and tell him how to run his private business.

I am fat. I have been all my life. Statistics say I am very likely to be discriminated against all my life rather harshly for this. Where is the law protecting me? Guess what? I dont want it. It sucks if someone makes a snap judgment about me when I enter because of my weight in an interview and I do not get a job, but whatever.

And personally, it is hard for me to take any "civil right" or "hate crimes" legislation seriously when the US refused to investigate one of the most slam-dunk cases of civil rights violation in the history of this country. I am sure it had nothing to do with the three INNOCENT falsely accused, with a DA who ran with it who even said "were f*****" to those around him before going into the grand jury room, were white.

Yes, the only "we cannot go back to the gold standard." Because fiat money worked so well for Germany in the 1920s or the Romans just before the fall of its empire.

Uh yeah, because the president of the Austin, Texas chapter of the NAACP said "he's not racist" suddenly Ron Paul is not racist. Can you straw man argument or "red herring"? The modern-day NAACP isn't exactly an organization that represents the social litmus for whom is or isn't anything considering some of their chapters, like the Nebraska-Iowa one, has leadership that openly condemns homosexuality and same-sex unions. It is just an organization with a bunch of chapters that are scattered about with no real goal these days...

The evidence of those letters speaks for itself with his editorial pieces. Sorry, racism is a lot more tacit behavior these days but usually the damning evidence in Paul's case is those newsletters...

You being fat is a temporary condition that can be changed via surgery or lifestyle changes, but being born a person of color or LGBT will not change no matter what any person that falls into that group says or does because it is a permanent condition. At the end of the day, and clearly by the way you present yourself you are a white male and the little thing called 'white privilege' that gives you the lovely things called certain privileges in life against the usual assumption of "not being one of us" assumption that is commonly displayed by the media and institutionalized structures of society.
 

pablo229

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Posts
34
Media
2
Likes
62
Points
413
Location
Antarctic Great Wall Station, Antarctica
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Uh yeah, read it but still don't like him. Anyone that shows animus towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the usage of the Interstate Clause or LGBT people in general isn't an ally of people of color or social egalitarianism. So yeah...

As a resident of California, a strange thing happened here regarding Obama supporters (some who speak of wanting egalitarianism for all.)

In 2008, there was a measure on the ballot to repeal the newly-legislated legalization of gay marriage. The measure passed, barely, and gay marriage was taken away from California... in large part to a significantly increased black population of voters who came out to (almost all) vote for Obama, but also vote against gay marriage.

I find it odd that a group of people who have been oppressed for so long, and who vote (very often, statistically) Democrat, still find it in their best interest to limit the rights of another type of minority. The most common reasons given by black California voters to vote for Obama, but against gay marriage, was "religious" or "spiritual beliefs". Yet the Democratic Party constantly blasts the right for wanting to use religion as a basis for legislation.

I don't have a problem with Obama or his voters in general, but as a resident of CA, I found these results to be, IMHO, a bit hypocritical.
 

dazedandconfused

Just Browsing
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
357
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This is what I do not understand with "minority" groups: There is no gray areas on issues. You are either for us or against us. Some of these groups (rightfully so) pointed out the fallacy if you are against the wars, you are against the troops and you are not patriotic.

But some of these groups who include blacks, who overwhelmingly believe if you are not for the entire civil rights act you are racist. Or if you are not totally for gay marriage, you are homophobic.

Well let me tell you, I personally would not support a resteraunt who refused to serve clientele because of their skin color. However, I do not feel the government has any right to tell a resteraunt to tell someone to whom they can and cannot serve. And I would not do business with someone who refused to sell property to another because of their color of the skin, but what right does the federal government to tell me who I can and cannot sell my private property to?

As for gay marriage, I am personally in favor of it. However, Paul is not against it, he just does not think the government as a whole should niot be in the business of marriage.

As for the fat comment just by losing weight or having surgery, there is much more to that. And, women are protected as a minority. Could not the same be said for any woman being discriminated against can simply have surgery to be a man?

As a parallel to civil rights, what right does ANYONE have to label one crime as worse than another because it is hate? If go out and plug a guy because he looked at me weird to killing a man because he is black to killing a gay person because of their sexuality, what is the damn difference?

And why can we not as a country realize there is a difference between someone's personal beliefs and how they would govern. Paul is against abortion but feels it is not the federal governments job to tell women what to do.

And I truly believe, and some agree with me, it is not a racial divide but a socio-economic divide. Guess what? Poor whites were treated like crap in the south also and poll taxes, literacy tests, etc... were not only to keep blacks from voting.

Also, there is a string of thought that forcing two people together who hate each other through government just breeds more hatred and in part, slows down acceptance of each other. Remember, Lincoln thought it would be damaging just to simply free the slaves. He did not want slavery to be able to expand into the territories and simple economics would end slavery. And in his autobiography, my bondage, my freedom, Frederick Douglass acknowledges the problems of all slaves instantly being free.
 
Last edited:

kayman

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
1,344
Media
26
Likes
1,184
Points
358
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
As a resident of California, a strange thing happened here regarding Obama supporters (some who speak of wanting egalitarianism for all.)

In 2008, there was a measure on the ballot to repeal the newly-legislated legalization of gay marriage. The measure passed, barely, and gay marriage was taken away from California... in large part to a significantly increased black population of voters who came out to (almost all) vote for Obama, but also vote against gay marriage.

I find it odd that a group of people who have been oppressed for so long, and who vote (very often, statistically) Democrat, still find it in their best interest to limit the rights of another type of minority. The most common reasons given by black California voters to vote for Obama, but against gay marriage, was "religious" or "spiritual beliefs". Yet the Democratic Party constantly blasts the right for wanting to use religion as a basis for legislation.

I don't have a problem with Obama or his voters in general, but as a resident of CA, I found these results to be, IMHO, a bit hypocritical.

Blacks make up barely than 6% of the state of California's population. That topic has been covered in verbatim to the point that only a slight majority of some blacks and Latinos did vote for the measure. The main group that aided in its passage was socially conservative whites in California, not just blacks.

It has been covered numerous times in social behavior sciences that blacks and Latinos are socially conservative on some issues including sexuality. Also the real culprit behind Prop 8 was the intentional targeting of blacks and Latinos by Mormon-backed PACs during the last 4-6 weeks leading up to the 2008 election. Meanwhile, there was little to any actual in-depth counter efforts by anti-Prop 8 PACs and advocates targeting this demographic. It's all about outreach and one shouldn't expect just because any group is going to automatically agree with another because they are both considering social minorities.
 

pablo229

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Posts
34
Media
2
Likes
62
Points
413
Location
Antarctic Great Wall Station, Antarctica
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
"But some of these groups who include blacks, who overwhelmingly believe if you are not for the entire civil rights act you are racist. Or if you are not totally for gay marriage, you are homophobic.

Well let me tell you, I personally would not support a resteraunt who refused to serve clientele because of their skin color. However, I do not feel the government has any right to tell a resteraunt to tell someone to whom they can and cannot serve. And I would not do business with someone who refused to sell property to another because of their color of the skin, but what right does the federal government to tell me who I can and cannot sell my private property to?"



The reason why people are turned off by RP and other libertarians who say the Civil Rights act is unnecessary is this:

Libertarians don't know what it feels like to be escorted out of a Woolworth's with a gun pointed at their head simply because of the way they look.
 

pablo229

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Posts
34
Media
2
Likes
62
Points
413
Location
Antarctic Great Wall Station, Antarctica
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Blacks make up barely than 6% of the state of California's population. That topic has been covered in verbatim to the point that only a slight majority of some blacks and Latinos did vote for the measure. The main group that aided in its passage was socially conservative whites in California, not just blacks.

It has been covered numerous times in social behavior sciences that blacks and Latinos are socially conservative on some issues including sexuality. Also the real culprit behind Prop 8 was the intentional targeting of blacks and Latinos by Mormon-backed PACs during the last 4-6 weeks leading up to the 2008 election. Meanwhile, there was little to any actual in-depth counter efforts by anti-Prop 8 PACs and advocates targeting this demographic. It's all about outreach and one shouldn't expect just because any group is going to automatically agree with another because they are both considering social minorities.

You make some good points. I guess what I'm getting at (since this is a Ron Paul thread) is that it seems odd to me that black voters vote so overwhelmingly democrat, when it seems like so many of them have the conservative social opinions shared more with Republicans. It seems more and more like the Dem politicians have a free pass to ignore passing legislation dealing with primarily black and latino issues, because those demographics will vote Dem anyway. A guy like Ron Paul seems to be picking some of those voters, because he addresses some issues that nobody else will touch (like the War on Drugs), even though he's a Republican (albeit non-traditional Republican). Seems like a chance for those groups to put their Democrat representatives in check? Just thinking out loud.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This is what I do not understand with "minority" groups: There is no gray areas on issues. You are either for us or against us. Some of these groups (rightfully so) pointed out the fallacy if you are against the wars, you are against the troops and you are not patriotic.

But some of these groups who include blacks, who overwhelmingly believe if you are not for the entire civil rights act you are racist. Or if you are not totally for gay marriage, you are homophobic.

Well let me tell you, I personally would not support a resteraunt who refused to serve clientele because of their skin color. However, I do not feel the government has any right to tell a resteraunt to tell someone to whom they can and cannot serve. And I would not do business with someone who refused to sell property to another because of their color of the skin, but what right does the federal government to tell me who I can and cannot sell my private property to?

As for gay marriage, I am personally in favor of it. However, Paul is not against it, he just does not think the government as a whole should niot be in the business of marriage.

As for the fat comment just by losing weight or having surgery, there is much more to that. And, women are protected as a minority. Could not the same be said for any woman being discriminated against can simply have surgery to be a man?

As a parallel to civil rights, what right does ANYONE have to label one crime as worse than another because it is hate? If go out and plug a guy because he looked at me weird to killing a man because he is black to killing a gay person because of their sexuality, what is the damn difference?

And why can we not as a country realize there is a difference between someone's personal beliefs and how they would govern. Paul is against abortion but feels it is not the federal governments job to tell women what to do.

And I truly believe, and some agree with me, it is not a racial divide but a socio-economic divide. Guess what? Poor whites were treated like crap in the south also and poll taxes, literacy tests, etc... were not only to keep blacks from voting.

Also, there is a string of thought that forcing two people together who hate each other through government just breeds more hatred and in part, slows down acceptance of each other. Remember, Lincoln thought it would be damaging just to simply free the slaves. He did not want slavery to be able to expand into the territories and simple economics would end slavery. And in his autobiography, my bondage, my freedom, Frederick Douglass acknowledges the problems of all slaves instantly being free.

People get really angry when I tell them none of the Civil Rights acts 'changed the laws'. They merely interpreted and spelled out in simple terms existing ones.