Personally, I want to live in a society where one of the goals of that society is to care of the sick and vulnerable. Ron Paul can go find his own de-regulated dreamland utopia.
Unfortunately, the welfare state in America has grown way beyond that.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
And while "we told you so!" is tempting to say, it's just sad. It's sad to see people energized by politics being disappointed by the first thing they may have really believed in. It's sad to see tens of thousands of Americans donate millions of dollars to someone who hid such grossly prejudicial and politically fatal connections from them.
It doesn't help when you have quotes like this coming from his newsletter:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
Quote:
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.
Quote:
Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.
Quote:
We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.
Quote:
If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.
He later distanced himself from the comments and claimed he didn't write them, but they appeared under the newsletter bearing his name so he bears at least some responsibility.
So instead of watching the video and responding to what he says there, we're going to go back into the past and bring up a bunch of old dirt, and then use that to criticize him? Really guys?
Calling him a closet racist is a pretty big stretch, even for you Vulcan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I do like Ron Paul as a politician though I can't agree with all of his ideas and ideals. But he is the type of politician/leader we need more of I think. Someone who is (appears to be anyway) honest and forthright, ready to look at different solutions and break down paradigms, isn't afraid to rock the boat and stand up to decaying establishments.
However, I do believe countries have a certain social responsibility to the people in their country. And not only for moral reasons. Most social programs, while costly, end up preventing larger costs and problems down the road. Not to mention, if the split between the haves and the have-nots gets to large, the ruling class will be overthrown anyway. It's a story as old as time.
Last edited by Daradon; 11-16-2012 at 04:21 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
You may not agree with Ron Paul on all his views, but you have to give him a lot of credit for two things:
1) In 2002, predicting the wars, and the subsequent housing collapse in 2008 (six years before it happened), and;
2) Honesty, integrity and standing up for his rights, even when he was consistently attacked for his views from all angles by his opponents. These are qualities that very, very few politicians possess in today's world. He never wavered from this.
If I were American, I would have wrote him in if I were allowed to vote. I don't agree with all his views, but he actually had details as to what he was going to do to eliminate debt, and he challenged others in the Republican GOP to state their plans as well.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
^^Those newsletters have been addressed long ago, ...and this has been brought up by the RP haters on this board before.
Ron Paul did not write those words. His political opponents have dragged this out numerous times to try and discredit a man with so much integrity.
From the same article.
Quote:
As outlined before, there were only a limited number of explanations for Paul's racist, conspiracy-oriented newsletters, and none of them were good. Either he believed the things he printed, merely capitalized on the things he printed, or was unaware of the things he printed. It was a spectrum ranging from monstrous to cynical to incompetent.
Apparently, it's the second option, at least according to the Washington Post: "[People] close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the [racist] newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
Doesn't show much integrity in my books.
Quote:
Ron Paul's non-answer about his racist attitudes towards black Americans during the New Hampshire GOP debate was a classic evasion. It was also a virtual admission of guilt.
Akin to a man on trial for murdering his wife--but who insists on talking about how he is a good father--Ron Paul is unable to explain away the racist screeds in his newsletters, opposition to honoring Dr. King with a national holiday, and belief that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be overturned because black folks' freedom is an imposition on white people's liberty.
^^Those newsletters have been addressed long ago, ...and this has been brought up by the RP haters on this board before.
Ron Paul did not write those words. His political opponents have dragged this out numerous times to try and discredit a man with so much integrity.
They were released under his name in a newsletter he personally published over a period of years. Who wrote them is fairly inconsequential in the face of that given that he never printed retractions or even denied them until it became an issue years later.
Ron Paul really impressed me during the republican debates, as he was the only one that didn't overwhelmingly come across as a dangerous, self-involved lunatic.
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
Well, the fact of the matter is, yes, since that's in general one of the principles of our existing societyhere in Canada. Or, you can go live in the la-la land that only exists in the dreams (as of yet, at least) of Ron Paul and his supporters. Your choice.
Right, so according to your argument, one of the principles of our existing society is that everyone must live by what you conceive to be your 'dreamland utopia'. This implies that no disagreement is permitted as your utopia is one of societal 'principles'. I don't see that enshrined anywhere in either our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite whereby we are supposed to be free to live by our own ideals and not pigeon-holed into anyone's utopia but our own.
Your entire premise and argument is completely academically flawed and filled with complete hypocrisy.
I understand what you're trying to say and the premise of your arguments, but you could do so much better in arguing your preferred policy outcome. ie. Say 'this policy is better because...' as opposed to acknowledging you implied that it's wrong to live in a 'dreamland utopia' by using the term pejoratively, then say your version of a 'dreamland utopia' is the one everyone has to live in.
Last edited by mariners_fever; 11-16-2012 at 05:43 PM.
Reason: syntax
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mariners_fever For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately, the welfare state in America has grown way beyond that.
Yes, for some reason they have taken it apon thenselves to care for the rich and ignorant, defense industries and the financial service sector as well.
Right, so according to your argument, one of the principles of our existing society is that everyone must live by what you conceive to be your 'dreamland utopia'. This implies that no disagreement is permitted as your utopia is one of societal 'principles'. I don't see that enshrined anywhere in either our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite whereby we are supposed to be free to live by our own ideals and not pigeon-holed into anyone's utopia but our own.
Your entire premise and argument is completely academically flawed and filled with complete hypocrisy.
I understand what you're trying to say and the premise of your arguments, but you could do so much better in arguing your preferred policy outcome.
They were released under his name in a newsletter he personally published over a period of years. Who wrote them is fairly inconsequential in the face of that given that he never printed retractions or even denied them until it became an issue years later.
No it's not. Its lazy and ignores the facts. Ron Paul did not write the articles, and he was not aware of what was written "under his name", so you can't say they represent his views.
Yes, for some reason they have taken it apon thenselves to care for the rich and ignorant, defense industries and the financial service sector as well.
Yes. That is corporate welfare. I have made tons of posts here criticizing the concept.
Why are you under the impression that I support corporate welfare? Try to remember ...I am not a republican.
