[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It goes much further than one donation. He has many links with these odious groups. Read the littlegreenfootballs link.[/quote]
So what? Does that mean he supports them or they support him? If it is the latter and not the former again, I ask, so what?
You act as if he condones their ideas. Try not to be so simple minded.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
[/quote]
If he gives it back then he become another politician which is worse. He’s damned because of idiots that don’t understand the difference between receiving support from individuals and receiving support from powerful lobby groups.
Tell me, who is allowed to support a candidate? Sexists? Atheists? Or only people you agree with? Last time I checked freedom of speech applied to everyone – and this is political speech at its finest.
Your freedom is wasted.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It goes much further than one donation. He has many links with these odious groups. Read the littlegreenfootballs link.
So what? Does that mean he supports them or they support him? If it is the latter and not the former again, I ask, so what?
You act as if he condones their ideas. Try not to be so simple minded.[/quote]
They are fellow travelers. You are the simple minded one here. The man is associating with low life scum bags. Unless he is trying to change their world view and help them to be better people I must assume that he shares their world view or is incredibly clueless. Not a good thing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A better question to consider, I think - has Paul’s candidacy been bad or good for libertarianism in the US? I think it has been bad for libertarianism’s prospects. Libertarianism needed a viable “Tech Central Station” candidate to explain a third way in politics - instead the US got a quirky ideologue who trafficks with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and nativist paranoiacs.[/quote]
Wow! You are simply a moron of the lowest caliber. His candidacy has nothing to do with libertarians, conservatives, nazis, racists, black people, white people, or any other group for that matter. It has to do with individuals…that you don’t seem to understand this is no surprise. You have shown your incapacity for using any intellect whatsoever on other threads as well.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. Paul apparently has more money than he knows what to do with, but he won’t return a white supremacist’s donation out of principle (bad)
If he gives it back then he become another politician which is worse. …[/quote]
No, he indicates he is a rational human being and demonstrates to potential voters he does not support these scum.
He could even keep the money if he wants but then I expect him to loudly proclaim the error of their ways.
His actions now indicate he agrees with them. If he does not agree with them his failure to effectively demonstrate his true beliefs reflects poorly on him.
If he doesn’t publicly repudiate their cause I will suspect he sympathizes with them. He might be clueless enough not to understand but his advisers must have a clue.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are fellow travelers. You are the simple minded one here. The man is associating with low life scum bags. Unless he is trying to change their world view and help them to be better people I must assume that he shares their world view or is incredibly clueless. Not a good thing.[/quote]
So what? What does that have to do with what he believes? How many sexists do you associate with on a daily basis? Does it affect you as a person in your ability to behave in your own capacity?
Holy shit, its like explaining simple addition to a brick wall.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Unless he is trying to change their world view and help them to be better people I must assume that he shares their world view or is incredibly clueless. Not a good thing.[/quote]
You are a fucking idiot. Try not to get hit by a bus when you cross the street today. I know how difficult such tasks can be when one doesn’t have use of his entire faculties to reason.
The charge of racism against a given individual is typically utilized as a political tool against a given opponent when no logical retort against the recipient’s arguments can be challenged, at least in the mind of the attacker. Such a smear tactic has grown increasingly tiresome and pointless.
In the particular case of Ron Paul it appears especially absurd given his politico-economic stance on [very] limited government and personal liberty. Political policies based upon ethnic lines require an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, and thus big government. Considering Paul’s stated politico-economic beliefs–as proven by his voting record–as well as the personal attacks heaped upon him ad-nauseum the charge of racism against this candidate appears absurd.
Unfortunately, anyone’s views who happen to fall outside the current socio-political or economic fad (in varying degrees) or perhaps have made statements that offend a given special interest are quickly and often erroneously charged with “racism” and/or “sexism”. At least in politics, one should examine the voting record of any individual holding political office coupled with his verbally and written stated positions in order to discover not only their viability in terms of practical applications but also consistency. Whether or not one agrees with a given politician’s positions however is another matter entirely.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They are fellow travelers. You are the simple minded one here. The man is associating with low life scum bags. Unless he is trying to change their world view and help them to be better people I must assume that he shares their world view or is incredibly clueless. Not a good thing.
So what? What does that have to do with what he believes? How many sexists do you associate with on a daily basis? Does it affect you as a person in your ability to behave in your own capacity?
[/quote]
We are not talking about associating with unsavory people . We are talking about electing a president!
I loudly proclaim my beliefs and repudiate sexism and racism. Show me Paul repudiating the Stormfront scum!
[quote]
Holy shit, its like explaining simple addition to a brick wall.[/quote]
It certainly is. Your failure to grasp simple concepts is both amusing and infuriating.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
The charge of racism against a given individual is typically utilized as a political tool against a given opponent when no logical retort against the recipient’s arguments can be challenged, at least in the mind of the attacker. Such a smear tactic has grown increasingly tiresome and pointless.
…[/quote]
This rings hollow. The man is accepting donations from scum. His lack of political awareness here is very disturbing.
Racism is real and should be addressed. Simply saying it is not the governments task to address it is not good enough.
Regarding the claim that there are no logical retorts to Paul’s arguments we have gone through his beliefs many times and pointed out the holes in his ideas.
I disagree with him on foreign policy, on the gold standard, on his elimination of many government agencies etc.
Frankly too many of the man’s ideas are ludicrous and are hard to take seriously.
Do I think the ban on incandescent bulbs is overstepping the line? Yes. Should we eliminate the EPA like Ron Paul thinks? No!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No, he indicates he is a rational human being and demonstrates to potential voters he does not support these scum. [/quote]
If you don’t have enough common sense to realize people by default do not support scum, that’s your own problem. You are assuming the worst without a shred of evidence and solely to further your agenda.
Watch the following Fox interview and pray tell us whatever flaws you might find in Paul’s logic.
P.S: Rational human being? What does one’s position towards supremacist or Nazi groups have to do with rationality?
I’ve never felt sorrier for a hooker:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0&k=55238
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This rings hollow. The man is accepting donations from scum. His lack of political awareness here is very disturbing.
[/quote]
It is unclear as to what a racist hopes to achieve with a candidate who advocates the withdrawal of an over-bloated state. If Ron Paul chose to return monies sent to his campaign by individual with whom he happens to disagree–even strongly–with on any given issue he would likely return the majority of monies donated. For example their are anti-war Democrats who have switched their political affiliation due likely to a single issue (Iraq). Such a donor would likely find very little in the way of agreement with the majority of Dr. Paul’s policies. Should the latter then screen (deeply) and subsequently return any donations from those whom don’t completely follow his program?
Obviously racism is an existential problem permeating several corners of civilization today. Furthermore, it isn’t–as you correctly stated–not enough to simply admonish government involvement in racial relations. However my statement was not attempting to answer this but rather to address what one might consider the following reality:
Governments across the globe have thrived on racial tensions, dividing the populace into mutually hostile camps. Some–the more centralized/authoritarian ones in practice–have utilized racial tensions to further the centralization of power into the hands of the few or the one. Thus as a matter of state policy, the victims of this method are subsequently persecuted.
Racism–a crime of the mind–cannot simply be abolished by government fiat nor eradicated from the mind of an individual by force. Currently, a great deal of racist thought and actions within the US persists appear to be due to the division of public charlatans such as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who utilize a certain events for personal gain. Like terrorism–a tactic–one cannot completely
Simply because one doesn’t believe that government, as an institution, can achieve a given goal doesn’t necessarily suggest that nothing should be done regarding any particular issue. This belief [or mindset]–however well intentioned andperhaps even without conscious recognition–stems from the socialist perspective. The following quote probably addresses this subject, in brief, better than I:
[i]
�??Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.�??
---- Frederic Bastiat (The Law) [pg. 29]
[/i]
Firstly, my statements were not necessarily directed at any specific individual poster. Second, my preceding argument wasn’t suggesting a complete absence of logical retorts to Paul’s beliefs/arguments but rather to those, particularly of the journalist variety, who simply engage in personal attacks as opposed to debating policy.
Indeed there are many individuals who view his ideas as such and should be respected as a position of disagreement, though perhaps absent the vitriolic connotations.
Given the statist-style education all individuals are obviously subjected to one could reasonably consider this a logical, even sensible position. It’s certainly worth debate.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
What’s with this “young-male Ron Paul supporter” fetish of yours, Mick28?
Fetish?
Do you even understand what that word means?[/quote]
I do. Which is why I referred to your irrational obsession with, and constant harping on, this single irrelevant point, as a “fetish.”
[quote]The facts are that most of Ron Pauls supporters are young males. He doesn’t appeal to many outside that demographic.
D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D T H I S ?[/quote]
That is a perfectly valid argument as to why he won’t win. But the fact of the matter is, most of the Ron Paul supporters participating in this thread have acknowledged that point, and their support of him doesn’t depend on whether he has a snowball’s chance in hell of wining. Why, then, do you keep coming back to this point? I can only assume that you have developed a fetish, or, that you are implying that because his supporters are young males, his philosophical positions aught to be dismissed. You will deny this I’m sure, because as you know, any book on logic will dismiss this as a fallacy. So, then, it must be a fetish, right?
[quote]I’m sure a large number of Ron Paul supporters are relatively young (I don’t know why that ought to serve as an argument against him in the first place),
Nothing other than it demonstrates his narrow appeal. Hence…he’s not getting elected to the Presidency.[/quote]
Again, most of the Ron Paul supporters have said, repeatedly, that their support for Ron Paul is not contingent upon his chances of winning. So your point is moot; it means nothing. Yet you repeat it, ad nauseam. You, I think, are not trying to make an argument that will persuade anyone of anything; you are only trying to make an insult disguised as an argument.
[quote] but I’m also willing to bet that a majority of young male voters aren’t voting for Ron Paul.
And who said that was not the case?[/quote]
Where did I say anyone did?
It is basic logic.
[quote]So, is it just those young male voters supporting Ron Paul who are succumbing to “simple answers?” What about the larger number who will undoubtedly vote democratic? or for Giuliani? or Romney? etc? 'Cause you know, their “answers” to tough questions are so much more nuanced, so obviously it must be some other attraction, right?
Again your illogical bent on this subject is leading you to a wrong conclusion. I never said any of that. Young and old alike can support a candidate with simple, or wrong answers.[/quote]
I didn’t say you said any of that. I asked those rhetorical questions in an effort to get you to follow your argument to its logical conclusion. You wrote:
" It’s been discussed ad nauseam and proven out in solid polling numbers, Paul really touches many young males in this country. His simple answers to complex problems draw them in like Jessica Alba’s cute smile."
Am I wrong in concluding that you are arguing here that, due to lack of experience and worldly knowledge that only comes with age, young male voters are falling for Ron Paul simply because he provides “simple answers to complex problems?” If I’m wrong, please correct me. If I’m right, and that is your intention, than what of those young male voters supporting other candidates? Are they equally simple minded, or is there some other cause that only applies to those not supporting Ron Paul?
[quote]I don’t know why, but I get the feeling you spend your weekends screaming “get off my lawn” at the neighborhood kids.
I don’t have a lawn, but if I did I would welcome everyone to use it as much as possible. And maybe even convince a few to mow it.
But here’s a suggestion for you, spend your weekends with your face stuck in a logic book. Your false conclusions based on wrong minded assumptions are shocking.[/quote]
Tell you what, I have a couple textbooks sitting here on my bookshelf that I’ll reread, and when I’m done, I’d be more than happy to mail them to you, free of charge. Just IM me your address and I’ll have them to you in 3-5 business days. Read them, and then we’ll compare notes.
I’m a Ron Paul “supporter” who has, in nearly every single post, acknowledged his many faults and his absolute lack of any chance of winning this election, and I am now quite convinced that while I don’t think he’s a racist, he was apparently never taught the maxim that one is known be the company one keeps. And yet, I’ll still vote for him if given the chance. Why? Because he’s the only option – albeit a shitty one – for someone with my philosophical point of view. It’s a symbolic vote, nothing more, nothing less. And I’m sure most, if not every other Ron Paul supporter on this board would acknowledge the same.
Actually, I have seen and heard Paul, on a number of occasions, repudiate them and their beliefs. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t (until very recently) get alot of airtime on the big networks. I’ll pull some link, video, and audio real quick.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, I have seen and heard Paul, on a number of occasions, repudiate them and their beliefs. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t (until very recently) get alot of airtime on the big networks. I’ll pull some link, video, and audio real quick. [/quote]
I would like to see it. When asked to repudiate the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts he weasel worded it and implied that the US government has not done an investigation. Kind of ignored the work of the 9/11 commission.
This is a lengthy interview with Paul. I’d invite anyone to watch the entirety of it. But, mostly from just about the 13 minute mark the grassroots style of his campaign is discussed.
The interviewer notes that his supporters bascially act independently of him, as they stump for him. Completely unmanaged. You have to remember, Ron’s support has come from the bottom up pretty much exclusively. Watch from the 13:00 minute mark, if you don’t want to watch the whole thing.
Oops, here’s the post to my video above.
Edit: Having a problem with posting video. It’s just hanging up. I was going to post a PBS interview. I’ll try a bit later.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
When asked to repudiate the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts he weasel worded it and implied that the US government has not done an investigation. [/quote]
Do some homework already!