SM - Thank you for trying to argue a case that doesn’t even involve your own country or even you directly. I am glad you can provide a video that talks about how gold is worth nothing and there is no ‘real inflation involving the dollar.’ Amazing that someone of your caliber will chime in rather than remain quite.
My gold coins are worth over twice what I paid for them and I never waited for Dr. Ron Paul to tell me anything about the markets. The dollar started collapsing long ago. I along with many others will never listen to another poster who isn’t even from the United States of America, but it is hilarious to watch you try. thumb-up
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
SM - Thank you for trying to argue a case that doesn’t even involve your own country or even you directly. I am glad you can provide a video that talks about how gold is worth nothing and there is no ‘real inflation involving the dollar.’ Amazing that someone of your caliber will chime in rather than remain quite.
My gold coins are worth over twice what I paid for them and I never waited for Dr. Ron Paul to tell me anything about the markets. The dollar started collapsing long ago. I along with many others will never listen to another poster who isn’t even from the United States of America, but it is hilarious to watch you try. thumb-up[/quote]
‘Once the bubble begins to deflate in earnest, the gold bugs are not likely to fare any better than Miami condo speculators or dot-com true believers.’
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I along with many others will never listen to another poster who isn’t even from the United States of America, but it is hilarious to watch you try. thumb-up[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Once the bubble begins to deflate in earnest, the gold bugs are not likely to fare any better than Miami condo speculators or dot-com true believers.’
I will begin by addressing the claims of “racist” remarks in RP’s former newsletters. I make no claims in having read the letters in full, or for that matter even partially, but only in what could be called a cursory review. As near as I can tell the statements occurred roughly between 1985 and 1994. One of the first offending statements was “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ " This occurred in December of '89 and I have yet to be able to find the full text the quote was contained in. Not having the proper context, I can make up examples in which the statement could be much less offensive, such as “If the soft bigotry of low expectation is allowed to continue in such programs, Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ Feel free to blast away. Without further context I am willing to give this statement a pass.[/quote]
Here’s a thought - go read the collection of newsletters (I’ve posted links, so has SM, and the New Republic has the trove). There’s no need to pull your chin and theorize about “context” - it’s right there. Help yourself, and stop equivocating what might have been said.
I would also note that, ironically, that critics of Paul seems to know more about Paul himself - and the newsletters, for example - than the True Believers that prostrate before his altar.
Then go get the full context. Why has it taken you this long to go read the material and come to an informed conclusion about what Paul did or did not say?
No, he hasn’t - he has taken a cowardly “non-responsibility” for them:
“Uh, yes the awful quotes were in my newsletters - of which I was very proud of these newsletters at the time I was making millions off of them - but I only wrote the ‘investment’ parts of them, and I have no idea who, uh, wrote the other parts…and I can’t be bothered to find out, even though it would take one phone call. I should have monitored them better, that’s all I did wrong…can we change the subject to, say, uh, auditing the Fed? Because I believe in full transparency so we can arrive at the truth. Say what? Well, ‘full transparency’ doesn’t quite apply to the newsletters, even though I am asking for your vote for President. Hey, did I mention I love freedom?”
[quote]As to the legislation he has authored…
Have you deemed it worthy to examine the content of his proposed legislation? If not, take a look at the following…
Having looked over the list myself, I come away more impressed with Dr. Paul than I was before. Again, I did not find 600+ pieces of legislation, but of those listed above I find no fault. [/quote]
But now, you are conveniently changing the subject. Before, Paul’s “one bill” was an example of his “believing in the Constitution” because he was intentionally so inactive in his legislative duties. Now, having been shown his legislative history - which is quite clear, you were completely unware of, which is odd, given your enthusiasm for Paul - you change tact, and champion him as a very active representative “trying to pass good bills?”
Well, which is it?
I think the short answer is - regardless of ideology, the facts are that Paul had a feckless career in national politics. He could have been a socialist, that isn’t the point - the point is, he has no track record of getting anything done. He just…talks. Well, and he channels earmarks to his district, but set that aside - if this guy was installed in the White House, he’d be as worthless as he was a 20 year legislator.
When you use a sentence like “[you are] a sanctimonious prick” to me, well, heh, let’s just say I urge to you use a little more restraint - because in addition to being incorrect and unnecessary, it makes you a hyopcrite when you start lecturing about appropriate tone to me. Get it now?
I will begin by addressing the claims of “racist” remarks in RP’s former newsletters. I make no claims in having read the letters in full, or for that matter even partially, but only in what could be called a cursory review. As near as I can tell the statements occurred roughly between 1985 and 1994. One of the first offending statements was “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ " This occurred in December of '89 and I have yet to be able to find the full text the quote was contained in. Not having the proper context, I can make up examples in which the statement could be much less offensive, such as “If the soft bigotry of low expectation is allowed to continue in such programs, Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ Feel free to blast away. Without further context I am willing to give this statement a pass.[/quote]
Here’s a thought - go read the collection of newsletters (I’ve posted links, so has SM, and the New Republic has the trove). There’s no need to pull your chin and theorize about “context” - it’s right there. Help yourself, and stop equivocating what might have been said.
I would also note that, ironically, that critics of Paul seems to know more about Paul himself - and the newsletters, for example - than the True Believers that prostrate before his altar.
[/quote]
Well than I am sure that those critics are perfectly aware that out of oodles of pages that they were able to distill roughly 4 damning who are far less damning when quoted in context.
They are probably also aware that someone who was running an office as a doctor at that time when he was not in congress had no chance in hell of writing all of this himself or to even function as an editor for it.
Whether it is wise to have your name on a newsletter that you could not possibly have read all of the time is another matter, but sometimes people you trust do the most stupid shit in your name.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `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.?
To me that so called racist comment read more like a dig at the criminal justice system. People always only quote the second half.
Well than I am sure that those critics are perfectly aware that out of oodles of pages that they were able to distill roughly 4 damning who are far less damning when quoted in context.[/quote]
Most critics have likely read some of the newsletters and are therefore aware that there are far more than four instances that raise questions about Paul’s character. Paul advocates - oddly - don’t seem to have read them.
Paul was touting the newsletters even while he was out of office - he was more than happy to take ownership of them when he was making plenty of money from them - and if he didn’t, in fact, write the “bad” parts, all he has to do is tell us all who did. How hard is that?
Apparently, very hard. Despite the fact that Paul says he “disavows” the statements and does not agree with them, he can’t be bothered to actually assign responsibility to the person who actually does have those opinions.
Why is that? No one really knows, but here is a probable theory - it was in fact Rockwell, and once Paul identifies Rockwell as the guy, Rockwell will have to talk (after all, these opinions don’t exactly help him either). So, he’ll have to sing - and Rockwell will either have to take full responsibility (“yes, I wrote them and yes I believe all that stuff”), which would be awful for him, or he would have to explain that it wasn’t all him and that Paul was aware (or flatly complicit) in the newsletters.
Neither event helps Paul. Rockwell was Paul’s #2 for years, and Paul still associates with Rockwell (and even publishes on his website). Even if Rockwell fell on the sword, more questions would be raised, and Rockwell is too close to Paul for Paul to distance himself.
Heh - not exactly a ringing endorsement for the man wanting the job of most powerful person in the world.
In any event, Paul isn’t going to president. The real question is what this episode does for libertarianism going forward. I can tell you - it ain’t helping.
Nothing has failed yet, so this quote is meaningless.
[/quote]
I disagree. Despite the mainstream media ignoring Dr. Paul, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa polls. Despite being attacked for his beliefs on foreign policy, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the polls. It does depend what polls you look at, but he is a front runner and that is a fact. now they are attacking him as a racist for things written years ago. To me this looks like an act of desperation.
I disagree. Despite the mainstream media ignoring Dr. Paul, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa polls. Despite being attacked for his beliefs on foreign policy, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the polls. It does depend what polls you look at, but he is a front runner and that is a fact. now they are attacking him as a racist for things written years ago. To me this looks like an act of desperation. [/quote]
No, Paul doesn’t have - and has never had - a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. He has largely been ignored for that simple fact. When he started polling higher, the media scrutiny (naturally) got more intense, and if he does well in Iowa, it will get more intense, and Paul’s sniveling dissembling on the newsletters won’t cut the mustard.
As an aside, Iowa is in the cross-hairs a little bit, in terms of its priority in the nominating process. If Iowa actually places Paul high, it will hasten its removal as the first state to participate.
I disagree. Despite the mainstream media ignoring Dr. Paul, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa polls. Despite being attacked for his beliefs on foreign policy, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the polls. It does depend what polls you look at, but he is a front runner and that is a fact. now they are attacking him as a racist for things written years ago. To me this looks like an act of desperation. [/quote]
No, Paul doesn’t have - and has never had - a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. He has largely been ignored for that simple fact. When he started polling higher, the media scrutiny (naturally) got more intense, and if he does well in Iowa, it will get more intense, and Paul’s sniveling dissembling on the newsletters won’t cut the mustard.
As an aside, Iowa is in the cross-hairs a little bit, in terms of its priority in the nominating process. If Iowa actually places Paul high, it will hasten its removal as the first state to participate.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m tired of trying to engage you in a reasonable fashion.
You are now coming off as a hysterical little bitch.
If Paul falls, I will simply move on to Santorum.
You, on the other hand, will party like a sissy with a bag full of dicks.
Your hatred is way out of sync with the realities. Now I am simply amused by you.
I disagree. Despite the mainstream media ignoring Dr. Paul, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa polls. Despite being attacked for his beliefs on foreign policy, he still finishes 1st or 2nd in the polls. It does depend what polls you look at, but he is a front runner and that is a fact. now they are attacking him as a racist for things written years ago. To me this looks like an act of desperation. [/quote]
No, Paul doesn’t have - and has never had - a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. He has largely been ignored for that simple fact. When he started polling higher, the media scrutiny (naturally) got more intense, and if he does well in Iowa, it will get more intense, and Paul’s sniveling dissembling on the newsletters won’t cut the mustard.
As an aside, Iowa is in the cross-hairs a little bit, in terms of its priority in the nominating process. If Iowa actually places Paul high, it will hasten its removal as the first state to participate.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m tired of trying to engage you in a reasonable fashion.
You are now coming off as a hysterical little bitch.
If Paul falls, I will simply move on to Santorum.
You, on the other hand, will party like a sissy with a bag full of dicks.
Your hatred is way out of sync with the realities. Now I am simply amused by you.
No,
Simply tired of ThunderLip’s righteous indignation.
My last post had attempted to pass an olive branch. I looked into his candidate (Huntsman) and stated what I liked and what might concern me should he come into closer contention. He chose to ignore and rushed to resume his RP attack. Phuck 'em.
It became evident that Tlips just wanted to fight. Fine, I can do that too.
It occurred to me that TB was way to emotionally invested in the issue. My question is why?
I assume he is most likely some overpaid and expendable government employee, the kind that Paul would love to do away with. Perhaps employed by the Dept. of Treasury, Education, or maybe a proctologist for the VA. Either way, I am way tired of his shit.
My last post had attempted to pass an olive branch. I looked into his candidate (Huntsman) and stated what I liked and what might concern me should he come into closer contention. He chose to ignore and rushed to resume his RP attack. Phuck 'em.[/quote]
Look above - I responded to your post. I didn’t go into discussion about Huntsman because this is a thread about Ron Paul. Further, check again - the post you threw a hissy fit over was a response to StevenF, not you.
Well, I don’t “just want to fight”, but assuming I did, I’d look elsewhere. You’re not any good at it.
[quote]It occurred to me that TB was way to emotionally invested in the issue. My question is why?
I assume he is most likely some overpaid and expendable government employee, the kind that Paul would love to do away with. Perhaps employed by the Dept. of Treasury, Education, or maybe a proctologist for the VA. Either way, I am way tired of his shit. [/quote]
Aw, somehow it got personal - it always does with the Paulnuts. Your observations are incorrect, but more importantly, they are irrelevant to anything we are discussing - it’s a weak attempt at an ad hominem, as you’re trying to slander me and my motivation to have strong opinions on the sainted Ron Paul.
It’s boring, and it’s not even a good personal attack.
In any event, you’ve showed your true colors - and you’ve gone from “probably irrelevant” to “undoubtedly irrelevant”. And the best part is, I don’t actually have to support how idiotic Paul supporters are with any evidence - posts like yours make the case better than I ever could.
