Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
103 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: For the Ron Paul fanatics, this guy is a fucking lunatic: rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
pronoblem baalberith
United States
Pleasantville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Is it just me or do my balls itch?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Check out this wacko bullshit that was published in the Ron Paul Survival Report. Yes, it is a link, click on it. Three pages of hysteria (with links to source PDFs of his zine) that you should read if you believe that this guy is legit. Please, I'd love to hear the supporters responses to this stuff. This guy is as nutjob as Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newslette...

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if you buy the ridiculous claim that he knew nothing about what was in the newsletters that were distributed in his name, he lent his name to a group of paranoid, racist cretins. I have no idea why anyone would want to be associated with him now.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
nothing but static
New Zealand
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
pronoblem wrote:
Check out this wacko bullshit that was published in the Ron Paul Survival Report. Yes, it is a link, click on it. Three pages of hysteria (with links to source PDFs of his zine) that you should read if you believe that this guy is legit. Please, I'd love to hear the supporters responses to this stuff. This guy is as nutjob as Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newslette...



the most recent stuff is from 1996,
get over it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).

The issue isn't about his personality; it's about his immorality and his his lack of character. After reading all that race war stuff in his newsletters, I can see now how Paul influenced his son, Rand, in the worst sort of ways. After all, Rand has echoed his father in asserting that restaurant owners and stores should not have been prevailed upon by the government to end "whites only" discrimination against African-Americans at public establishments.

In addition to having voted against the Martin Luther King Holiday and having called Dr. King "a X-rated bisexual pedophile who seduced underage girls and boys", Ron Paul is also one of the most repugnant racist hypocrites for having in recent years issued praise for Dr. King on the occasion of his holiday whilst at the same time standing by his irreconcilable stance against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The thrust of the recent disclosures about the content of Ron Paul's own newsletters sounds much like the scandal surrounding all those Republican Congressmen and Senators who in the late 1990s were discoverd to have been singing the praises of the causes of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens in that group's own magazine.

However, your own post reminds me of the question posed in the following article below.


> Excerpt from the Dec. 21, 2011 opinion column by James Kirchick for the New Republic magazine entitled:

Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?

Nearly four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, The New Republic published my expose of newsletters published by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The contents of these newsletters can best be described as appalling. Blacks were referred to as “animals.” Gays were told to go “back” into the “closet.” The “X-Rated Martin Luther King” was a bisexual pedophile who “seduced underage girls and boys.” Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Paul praised right-wing, anti-government militia movements as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” The voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

And yet, four years on, Ron Paul’s star is undimmed. Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians....

To be sure, these figures, like the broader group of Paul enthusiasts, don’t base their support on the Congressman’s years-long record of supporting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and far-right militias. Quite the opposite: Like the candidate himself, they manage to mostly avoid making any mention of his unsavory record at all. It’s an impressive feat of repression, one that says volumes about the type of enthusiasm Paul inspires.

Ultimately, Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government — its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry — he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name — isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First, principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.

But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic — this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.

And so it’s not hard to see why Paul’s more ardent supporters stand by him: They too find it seductive to believe that the United States is on the verge of utter collapse. The benefit of indulging in such visions is that it sets the stage for the arrival of a savior: This is the role that Paul himself plays, of course. Fiercely independent, uncorrupted by the “establishment,” speaker of unpopular truths, only Paul is capable of saving the country. What are a handful of uncouth newsletters really worth when the stakes are so high?....

Some Paul supporters acknowledge the newsletters but dismiss them as “old news,” arguing that there is no trace of the racist and conspiratorial ideas he promoted for decades in his speeches today on the campaign trail. But while it’s true that Paul has not said anything explicitly racist in public, the same cannot be said for his promotion of conspiracy theories. He appears regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, perhaps the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (profiled by The New Republic in 2009), where he often indulges the host’s delusional ravings about the coming “New World Order.”

He continues to associate with the John Birch Society, the extreme-right wing organization that William F. Buckley denounced in the early 1960’s after it alleged that none other than President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” Asked about the group in 2007, Paul told the New York Times, “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society! Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society.” Indeed, Paul delivered the keynote address at the organization’s 50th anniversary dinner in September (2011).

In May, Paul said President Obama’s order to execute Osama bin Laden “was absolutely not necessary.” This statement earned a rebuke from Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, a movement one would presume would be quite favorable to Paul. “If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House,” Phillips said, “he has just revealed it.”

If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, it’s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a “CIA coup” against the American government and that the Agency is “in drug businesses.”

Why, for instance, do these self-styled libertarians not throw their support to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who, unlike Paul, can boast executive experience and doesn’t have the racist and conspiratorial baggage?

At this late stage, that Ron Paul’s supporters haven’t found an alternative candidate says more about them, and the intellectual milieu they inhabit, than it does about the erstwhile publisher of racist newsletters.


________________________________________________________________



So, MusedFable, please explain to us clear, concise, unambiguous terms how can you say that Ron Paul's lesser-known but recently-discovered controversial views -- as excerpted below -- aren't relevant to your holding Ron Paul in such high regard?


> Excerpts from Selections from Ron Paul’s Newsletters from the Jan. 17. 2012 article at: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newslette...

The newsletters warned repeatedly of “race war.” The June 1990 Political Report carried an item entitled, “Race War?” which claimed that said war was on the horizon because of “the victimization mentality created by the civil rights movement, where every black failure is a white crime. If there is indeed this sort of trouble ahead, it is just another reason why every honest American should be armed.” The August 1990 Political Report claimed that “we’ve got a potential race war.” The December 1990 Investment Letter reported that “Abortion is rampant, race war is heating up, AIDS is spreading, and inflation is wiping out the middle class.”

The September 1992 edition of the Political Report wrote of a supposed spate of bank robberies this way: “Today, gangs of young blacks bust into a bank lobby firing rounds at the ceiling.” It also said that “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held as 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.”....

The September 15, 1995 issue of The Ron Paul Survival Report speculated about the Oklahoma City bombing: “Were there, as some people now say, two bombs that went off in the building? And might the government have the wrong man? Who doubts the possibility that the government – which lied about Waco and Ruby Ridge – may also be covering up true information and planting false information about the Oklahoma bombing?" The newsletter then cited “a courageous cover story” from The New American, the official magazine of the John Birch Society, as evidence.

A November 2007 fundraising letter sent by Paul’s presidential campaign, describing him as “the only Republican who can beat Hillary,” invoked the Branch Davidians (cult of David Koresh) and “the mysterious death of Hillary’s pal Vince Foster.”



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
muntmeister wrote:
pronoblem wrote:
Check out this wacko bullshit that was published in the Ron Paul Survival Report. Yes, it is a link, click on it. Three pages of hysteria (with links to source PDFs of his zine) that you should read if you believe that this guy is legit. Please, I'd love to hear the supporters responses to this stuff. This guy is as nutjob as Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newslette...



the most recent stuff is from 1996,
get over it.


"Yes, your honor, I killed and ate a man once, but I'm feeling much better now."
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Tagge
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).
Uhh, the other guys up for office are sociopaths as well. Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mtagge wrote:
Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
Unless you're african-american of course.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).


Most of things require congress to act. Ron Paul has no friends in congress and would get nothing done.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's my take on this issue, Ron might actually have had a change of heart and now. in true libertarian fashion, see's all people as having the right to equal freedom to do as they please no matter their origins. BUT, we are talking about the Presidency here and we have to hold office seekers to a much higher standard. Sure, the other candidates might shelter racist feelings and opinions but the difference is that we KNOW that Ron Paul at least tolerated racist rhetoric in his name. With how important the presidency is, we can't risk racist recidivism.

It's too bad, as he seems committed to fixing some things that are very broken in our system of government. He's just not the guy we can trust to do it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

rshipley wrote:
MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).

Most of things require congress to act. Ron Paul has no friends in congress and would get nothing done.

That's moreso a great reason to offer for NOT voting for Ron Paul.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Tagge
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

rshipley wrote:
MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).

Most of things require congress to act. Ron Paul has no friends in congress and would get nothing done.

That's moreso a great reason to offer for NOT voting for Ron Paul.

BS, that is a FANTASTIC reason. He has no friends so couldn't start a war action if he wanted to do so.

What he can do is direct policies at the federal agency level and issue Executive Orders. You know stuff like raise the threshold for classifying documents, direct the FBI not to pursue marijuana charges or spend resources doing so (basically nullify bad laws by ignoring enforcement), restrict "business relationships" between watchdog agencies and the businesses they regulate, lessen the efforts by the State Department to strong arm our allies into adopting our Internet policies.

All of which is important and what a President can actually do, but none of the recent ones have.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Tagge
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Sure, the other candidates might shelter racist feelings and opinions but the difference is that we KNOW that Ron Paul at least tolerated racist rhetoric in his name. With how important the presidency is, we can't risk racist recidivism.

Serious question, do you honestly believe this and that he would be an overtly (or even repressed) racist president turning back the clock? Seems to me like an excuse for some other problem you have (or think you have) with the guy's policies. Rather than throw out the race card you should just be up front with your true thoughts.
TheChin! wrote:
It's too bad, as he seems committed to fixing some things that are very broken in our system of government. He's just not the guy we can trust to do it.
But we can trust Obama or Romney? Seriously? Get a grip man, why don't you say what is actually bothering you instead of spouting off talking points?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
BUT, we are talking about the Presidency here and we have to hold office seekers to a much higher standard.


When are we actually going to start doing that then?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

mtagge wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
rshipley wrote:
MusedFable wrote:
Don't care. I want the wars ended, no indefinite detention, an end to the war on drugs, and somebody to look into banker fraud. I don't care about his personality or if I want to have a beer with him. I don't care about his stances on things he can't do as president (ie things that congress does).

Most of things require congress to act. Ron Paul has no friends in congress and would get nothing done.

That's moreso a great reason to offer for NOT voting for Ron Paul.
BS, that is a FANTASTIC reason. He has no friends so couldn't start a war action if he wanted to do so.

I also heard that very same sort of disingenuous notion advanced by those back in 1990 and 1991 who were suggesting back then that voting for David Duke for U.S. Senator and Governor, respectively, wouldn't have been such a bad idea after all since he allegedly wouldn't have been able to get anything done.

Well, I didn't buy it then for Republican David Duke and I certainly don't buy it now for Republican Ron Paul.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

mtagge wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
Sure, the other candidates might shelter racist feelings and opinions but the difference is that we KNOW that Ron Paul at least tolerated racist rhetoric in his name. With how important the presidency is, we can't risk racist recidivism.

Serious question, do you honestly believe this and that he would be an overtly (or even repressed) racist president turning back the clock?

Yes, if given half the chance. After all, both he and his son are already a bit too outspoken in both print, speeches and interviews about wanting to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


mtagge wrote:
Seems to me like an excuse for some other problem you have (or think you have) with the guy's policies. Rather than throw out the race card you should just be up front with your true thoughts.

Sorry, but we're already dealing here with an entire deck of Ron Paul's race cards of his own making.

So, if anything, we're throwing out the anti-racist card.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Civil Rights Act is an example of the good government can do and the Public Accomodations section (that Paul has a problem with) is what made it work. Ron Paul has said that he would have been against it and that's not the guy I want running things. I want a pragmatist, not an idealogue.

As to whether he is racist, I'm guessing yes because of the crap he let be put out in his name without protest. His libertarian ideology provides a convenient cover for it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mtagge wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
Sure, the other candidates might shelter racist feelings and opinions but the difference is that we KNOW that Ron Paul at least tolerated racist rhetoric in his name. With how important the presidency is, we can't risk racist recidivism.

Serious question, do you honestly believe this and that he would be an overtly (or even repressed) racist president turning back the clock? Seems to me like an excuse for some other problem you have (or think you have) with the guy's policies. Rather than throw out the race card you should just be up front with your true thoughts.


It doesn't matter what the rest of his platform is, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. If someone makes a decision to sign or not sign a bill using racist criteria they are not fit for the Presidency. I didn't play the race card, Paul did.

mtagge wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
It's too bad, as he seems committed to fixing some things that are very broken in our system of government. He's just not the guy we can trust to do it.
But we can trust Obama or Romney? Seriously? Get a grip man, why don't you say what is actually bothering you instead of spouting off talking points?


Talking points? The only person I trust is Nader, which I have publicly stated many times. Having said that, I trust Obama and Romney more than Paul because I think anyone who can tolerate racism has rationality issues. I have problems with Obama and even more problems with Romney. So, even though I agree with many things in Ron Paul's platform, his racist-related past is a non-starter.

You can try to change the subject to rational subjects like policy and he may excel there, but it is all moot as he is tarnished goods now. I'm not saying I wouldn't trust him as a co-worker, I just don't want him in charge of the executive branch of the government.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron Paul Out-Santorums Fellow Republican Candidates on Abortion

> Excerpt from the Jan. 19, 2012 news story for The Daily Beast by Michelle Goldberg entitled:

Rick Santorum Ambushed at Personhood Forum by Abortion Flyers, Ron Paul Fans

The social-issues candidate was outflanked at a Personhood USA meeting in South Carolina by Ron Paul backers who dominated the audience, and pro-life activists who circulated flyers that smeared Santorum’s anti-abortion bona fides and attacked his wife.

Indeed, if you hadn’t been following the primary, you’d have left the Hilton on Wednesday thinking that Ron Paul, the OB/GYN, was the best-known abortion opponent in the race. Unlike Perry, Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn’t in Greenville, appearing instead via live video feed from Washington, D.C. It didn’t matter—he thrilled the largely adoring crowd, and managed to stay on message, never meandering into tangents about pet issues like the gold standard.

Wednesday afternoon, all the Republican presidential candidates except Mitt Romney spoke at a town-hall meeting in Greenville, South Carolina, organized by Personhood USA, the hardline anti-abortion group. It should have been Santorum’s sweet spot—after all, no other candidate has made social issues so central to his campaign. The forum seemed designed to amplify his attacks on Romney. Each candidate was questioned for 20 minutes by a panel of three anti-abortion activists, who made frequent reference to Romney’s pro-choice past and his refusal to attend the event. In the end, though, the night might have hurt Santorum most of all.

For one thing, the audience was dominated, unexpectedly, by vocal Ron Paul supporters, with only a small number of visible Santorum fans. That’s a bad sign for the ex-senator, since if he can’t dominate at an anti-abortion gathering, he can’t dominate anywhere. Worse, while hundreds of attendees were inside the Greenville Hilton ballroom, someone was slipping flyers on their windshields warning that when it comes to abortion, Santorum is really a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who doesn’t mean what he says....

Indeed, if you hadn’t been following the primary, you’d have left the Hilton on Wednesday thinking that Paul, the OB/GYN, was the best-known abortion opponent in the race. Unlike Perry, Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn’t in Greenville, appearing instead via live video feed from Washington, D.C. It didn’t matter — he thrilled the largely adoring crowd, and managed to stay on message, never meandering into tangents about pet issues like the gold standard.

Our culture, he argued, has been degenerating since the 1960s. “That’s when the drug culture started, the war was going on, the pornography came out, and the abortion issue came in,” he said. Paul doesn’t dwell on this stuff when he’s speaking to libertarian crowds, which may be why some Paul supporters are under the misapprehension that he just wants to return the issue of abortion to the states. In fact, speaking at the Personhood forum, he made it clear that he only wants to do that while working toward an anti-abortion constitutional amendment. He even boasted of his ability to win libertarians to the anti-abortion cause.

Some libertarians, he said, see limiting a woman’s choice as a violent act. [i]“But as a physician, I can talk to them and say look, I’ll show you on the ultrasound,” he said. “I’ll show you what they’re doing. This is an act of violence. And this has helped me convert many, many people.”


On Wednesday, he probably converted a few to his campaign, too.


___________________________________________________



Like many racists, Ron Paul is concerned about the adverse effect of abortion on members of his own race, but like many racists, that's a unstated hidden subtext that he would most definitely not elaborate about in mixed-racial company. Like many racists, Paul is apparently concerned about the demographics forcast that by mid-century, Hispanics will outnumber Whites in the U.S.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
mtagge wrote:
Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
Unless you're african-american of course.

or Jewish or gay or...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
mtagge wrote:
Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
Unless you're african-american of course.


Ending the drug war is the best thing that could happen to african americans. The president does not have the ability to repeal amendments or change civil rights laws.

If Ron Paul where president he'd probably get as much legislature through as he does now (which is jack shit). What he would be able to do is stop the wars, halt the federal level drug war, and instruct the three letter government organizations from spying on people, locking them up, or killing them with no legal checks or balances.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MusedFable wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
mtagge wrote:
Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
Unless you're african-american of course.


Ending the drug war is the best thing that could happen to african americans. The president does not have the ability to repeal amendments or change civil rights laws.

If Ron Paul where president he'd probably get as much legislature through as he does now (which is jack shit). What he would be able to do is stop the wars, halt the federal level drug war, and instruct the three letter government organizations from spying on people, locking them up, or killing them with no legal checks or balances.


It seems to me that the latest "instruction to incarcerate without due process" came from Congress and was signed by the President. A president can choose to sign a bill or not, and Congress can instruct Federal Bureaucracies to act or not. But with the power of the veto, a President can exercise his own values and judgment that can have an effect on peoples freedoms. Someone with a racist past may make choices based on irrational prejudices.

Other examples include Obama saying he will veto SOPA if Congress where to pass it. If Congress were to pass some law enforcing voting restrictions (some kind of poorly rationalized poll-tax type provision) that unfairly excluded minorities, it is a possibility that Paul would sign it, just based on his past. Would he veto it on his libertarian credentials? One would hope, but we have a data point (or more) suggesting he might not.

Though Ron Paul probably would end unjustified wars of commercial aggression, I'd rather vote for someone else with the same goal, but with less baggage.

EDIT: Really, isn't there a better qualified libertarian out there?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
MusedFable wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
mtagge wrote:
Only difference near as I can tell is that this guy doesn't want the federal government to be able to spy on me 24/7 and lock me up when I break a corporate law.
Unless you're african-american of course.


Ending the drug war is the best thing that could happen to african americans. The president does not have the ability to repeal amendments or change civil rights laws.

If Ron Paul where president he'd probably get as much legislature through as he does now (which is jack shit). What he would be able to do is stop the wars, halt the federal level drug war, and instruct the three letter government organizations from spying on people, locking them up, or killing them with no legal checks or balances.


It seems to me that the latest "instruction to incarcerate without due process" came from Congress and was signed by the President. A president can choose to sign a bill or not, and Congress can instruct Federal Bureaucracies to act or not. But with the power of the veto, a President can exercise his own values and judgment that can have an effect on peoples freedoms. Someone with a racist past may make choices based on irrational prejudices.

Other examples include Obama saying he will veto SOPA if Congress where to pass it. If Congress were to pass some law enforcing voting restrictions (some kind of poorly rationalized poll-tax type provision) that unfairly excluded minorities, it is a possibility that Paul would sign it, just based on his past. Would he veto it on his libertarian credentials? One would hope, but we have a data point (or more) suggesting he might not.

Though Ron Paul probably would end unjustified wars of commercial aggression, I'd rather vote for someone else with the same goal, but with less baggage.

EDIT: Really, isn't there a better qualified libertarian out there?


You do know that Paul is outspoken about the racial prejudices in our court system? He specifically goes out of his way to say blacks get fucked over by our court system more than rich white guys. That's an almost literal quote.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MusedFable wrote:
That's an almost literal quote.


This just made me spit coffee all over my keyboard laughing. Good line.

Unless you were serious, in which case I have to wonder what that even means.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZ5D_fU39w#t=8m42s

Also right before that he bitchslaps Gingrich over his lack of military service.

Edit: He says "white rich person" at 10:22
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.