[quote]Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.” [/quote]
Do share.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.[/quote]
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Meh. I’ve read the newsletters.
The worst I can say about the opinions expressed in those pieces is that they are old-fashioned and politically incorrect.
I’m convinced that racism (that is, the belief that one’s own race is somehow superior to other races) lies not too far beneath the surface of all men’s skin, no matter what color that skin happens to be.
The fact that Ron Paul, or his ghostwriter, or whoever, has committed these politically inconvenient (but doubtless widely shared, if not widely acknowledged out loud) opinions to paper is unfortunate, but not a big enough deal to impel me to completely abandon him as a candidate.
Perhaps you think that makes me a racist by association. If so, that is also unfortunate, but not something I’m going to lose any sleep over.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.[/quote]
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.[/quote]
Which, given his other positions would be completely irrelevant even if it was true.
Or as this author put it:
An Open Letter to the Black Community On Behalf of Ron Paul
by Robert A. Wicks
Blacks in America have long been victims of the state and its allies. From slavery to the war on drugs, laws which prevent a person using his own body and property as he sees fit, have had terrible effects on generations of black folk. Initially, the oppression of blacks was widespread and decentralized. This required a different set of strategies from the widespread, centralized oppression of today. Many blacks are concerned when the matter of rolling back the federal government is broached. It is undeniably true that the various state governments of the past supported terrible atrocities against black people. At such a time, political strategies had to be developed to deal with the most pressing threat. As the political winds have changed, so too must the strategies change, even for those who believe in the legitimacy of government.
The war on drugs is the most pressing legal issue facing black people. Racial profiling, raids on homes which result in death and oppression, such as the cases of Kathryn Johnston and Corey Maye, are directly attributable to the war on drugs. States and localities have been moving in the direction of decriminalization for marijuana for decades. The federal government has been opposing such measures for the entire time. A Presidential candidate’s position on the war on drugs is the first legitimate political litmus test I have seen within my lifetime. The issue is serious, affecting the lives of millions. It is something which calls into question the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to treat your own body as you see fit. Of all the major Presidential candidates, one, and one alone has called for an end to this scourge to the black community: Ron Paul. The other candidates are unconcerned, in favor of the drug war, or too cowardly to speak. Ron Paul has shown the courage of his convictions through his unabashed opposition to the drug war.
Laws against drug use are no more justifiable than anti-miscegenation laws. They are laws which attack the root of the notion that all men are created equal by establishing that some have the right to rule over others, and those others have no similar right. What other justification is there for preventing an adult from inhaling, ingesting, or injecting the chemical of his choice into his own body? A large portion of the black prison population is imprisoned because of drug offenses. Many of those who are imprisoned for other offenses, such as property crimes and violent crimes are there as a result of the various violent consequences of the war on drugs. Ron Paul does not claim to be able to fix all this. As President, he can only Constitutionally stop the federal war on drugs, not those in which the states engage. But removing federal support for drug prohibition could have a tremendous impact nonetheless. First, it would obviously mean that some people would no longer be imprisoned. No more federal drug charges and federal prison time for drug offenses. Also, the timbre would be set for states to follow suit. There have already been several states which have indicated interest in backing off the war on drugs, and our neighbors to the north and south have also indicated this willingness. It is easy to imagine California and Montana, for example, completely legalizing marijuana, and perhaps extending that legalization to other drugs as well. Right now, federal drug raids are a major problem for legal marijuana vendors in California.
In his appearance on Tavis Smiley’s All-American Presidential Forum, Ron Paul impressed me immeasurably with his ability to actually address this extraordinarily important issue. While other candidates either refuse to show up, or divert attention from their unwillingness to actually do things clearly within their power as President, Ron Paul spoke clearly to what he supported. How many other candidates have expressed any desire whatsoever to actually eliminate a law? How many have expressed concern over what the government is doing to oppress the very people it is charged to protect? How many actually criticize the government for evil which the government itself perpetuates? The answer is one. The answer is Ron Paul.
[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.
Which, given his other positions would be completely irrelevant even if it was true.
…
[/quote]
No. Not irrelevant. Racism in a public official is not irrelevant in the US; to choose to ignore it, for some fantasy of political belief, is a personal choice. And that is a choice I do not make. You can make your own choices, but, at least you can’t vote here.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.[/quote]
That was a long read. The part about the 1992 riots cracked me up. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,”
Anyway, the author did a mighty good job at demonizing Paul. One bit that bothered me a lot is where he writes: “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false.
I was 10 years old in 1990, but even I knew that we didn’t know much about the virus at the time. There’s plenty of research that shows low concentrations in saliva. Heck, I dare the author to French kiss a person with HIV.
Wait, he’s homosexual…nevermind.
Don’t get me wrong. Many of the quotes there reek of prejudice (provided they’re accurate and not taken out of context). But for the sake of argument, where do you think one crosses the line into racism?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.
Which, given his other positions would be completely irrelevant even if it was true.
…
No. Not irrelevant. Racism in a public official is not irrelevant in the US; to choose to ignore it, for some fantasy of political belief, is a personal choice. And that is a choice I do not make. You can make your own choices, but, at least you can’t vote here.[/quote]
It is irrelevant.
He is the only one who wants to dismantle the government to a degree that it is no longer able to serve as a a weapon against minorities, especially the WOD that hurts black people the most.
Therefore it is as irrelevant as his stance on abortion.
Classic (liberalism) is about not forcing your private views on others with the help of the government so who cares what is private views are if his libertarian ideas make them irrelevant in a public office?
[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.
Which, given his other positions would be completely irrelevant even if it was true.
…
No. Not irrelevant. Racism in a public official is not irrelevant in the US; to choose to ignore it, for some fantasy of political belief, is a personal choice. And that is a choice I do not make. You can make your own choices, but, at least you can’t vote here.
It is irrelevant.
He is the only one who wants to dismantle the government to a degree that it is no longer able to serve as a a weapon against minorities, especially the WOD that hurts black people the most.
Therefore it is as irrelevant as his stance on abortion.
Classic (liberalism) is about not forcing your private views on others with the help of the government so who cares what is private views are if his libertarian ideas make them irrelevant in a public office?
[/quote]
No, sorry again. Maybe what you describe would happen in Cloud Kookooland, a mythical country in which axiomatic logic rules. But in the real world, attitudes like racism matter.
Case in point: I do not know if Paul is a racist, but the writings and statements attributed to him are arguably so. Either he wrote them, and acts by them to some degree, or he allows others to do so, or he simply doesn’t care, in which case others act for him.
A Libertarian Cloud Kookooland may exist, where racism has no avenue of expression, but I haven’t seen it yet, and neither have you, Orion; it is a fantasy as false as “The Workers’ Paradise,” another rigid inhuman construct of ideologues.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That was the position I was to take. However, some things have come to light that can’t be explained away by a Ghost-writer who “was immediately fired.”
Do share.
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.
Some of the accusations were known to me, and ascribed to political hyperbole. The article was more detailed, and, as you would guess, brought 950 responses, from foaming-mouth Paulistas, in just the last few hours.
As I said in another thread about Dr. Paul and racism, the smell sticks to him like green on beans.
Which, given his other positions would be completely irrelevant even if it was true.
…
No. Not irrelevant. Racism in a public official is not irrelevant in the US; to choose to ignore it, for some fantasy of political belief, is a personal choice. And that is a choice I do not make. You can make your own choices, but, at least you can’t vote here.
It is irrelevant.
He is the only one who wants to dismantle the government to a degree that it is no longer able to serve as a a weapon against minorities, especially the WOD that hurts black people the most.
Therefore it is as irrelevant as his stance on abortion.
Classic (liberalism) is about not forcing your private views on others with the help of the government so who cares what is private views are if his libertarian ideas make them irrelevant in a public office?
No, sorry again. Maybe what you describe would happen in Cloud Kookooland, a mythical country in which axiomatic logic rules. But in the real world, attitudes like racism matter.
Case in point: I do not know if Paul is a racist, but the writings and statements attributed to him are arguably so. Either he wrote them, and acts by them to some degree, or he allows others to do so, or he simply doesn’t care, in which case others act for him.
A Libertarian Cloud Kookooland may exist, where racism has no avenue of expression, but I haven’t seen it yet, and neither have you, Orion; it is a fantasy as false as “The Workers’ Paradise,” another rigid inhuman construct of ideologues.[/quote]
First of all the land he describes already existed and rose to be a superpower not too long ago.
Likewise commodity money is the norm and fiat monies always were aberrations that failed sooner or later.
Then, even if the above reasons were not enough to show that libertarianism is far from socialist utopic fantasies but actually were the reason for the unequaled economic growth of the last 2-3 centuries it still does not make sense that someone could make racist policies by dismantling the very apparatus that would have to carry out such policies.
Finally, I find it hilarious that the socioeconomic abberation we live in today is so accepted that even though it is blatantly obvious for everyone with a calculator or even a modest sense what compound interests combined with our demographics mean for our society, still everyone that wants to go back to the system that brought us the triumph of the middle calls, les citoyens if you will, political freedom and prosperity is called a kook.
Cool, let us go back to a closed society, step by step, and let us call it progress.
texasguy,
All right, I give: I know ron paul kicks ass.
Wait.
All right, correction: ron paul does not kick ass.
JeffR
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s interesting about this is that two seperate newspapers seemed to absolve him of having knowledge, or being involved in writing such things. Hell, including a NYT article! Oh well.[/quote]
That blog fabricated alot of the information they posted. For one Paul took responsibility for this 10 yers ago and for two, the number of articles this applied to is overstate – it was one article that was published while Paul was not even in congress.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
No, sorry again. Maybe what you describe would happen in Cloud Kookooland, a mythical country in which axiomatic logic rules. But in the real world, attitudes like racism matter.
Case in point: I do not know if Paul is a racist, but the writings and statements attributed to him are arguably so. Either he wrote them, and acts by them to some degree, or he allows others to do so, or he simply doesn’t care, in which case others act for him.
A Libertarian Cloud Kookooland may exist, where racism has no avenue of expression, but I haven’t seen it yet, and neither have you, Orion; it is a fantasy as false as “The Workers’ Paradise,” another rigid inhuman construct of ideologues.[/quote]
Well stated, and right on the money.
I can’t support the man and feel good about it, anymore. However, at least I didn’t support any of those big government kooks still running! Meh, I’ll give Thompson a break. He’s not that bad, fiscally. But, he’s pretty much done.
[quote]orion wrote:
Likewise commodity money is the norm and fiat monies always were aberrations that failed sooner or later.[/quote]
The problem with “commodity money” like the gold standard is that gold, in and of itself, is fiat money. It only has value because people believe it has value.
Also, an economy needs a healthy inflation rate of 1-3% to keep money flowing. This can only be accomplished by slowly and consistently increasing the money supply.
Fiat money was wonderful for the 13 colonies, worked quite well in Canada 1935-1974, and dare-I-mention rose 1930’s Germany from an economic shit-hole to a dangerous empire that challenged the world.
It’s only when fiat money is created and issued as debt by private interests does the system break down. That and when whoever is creating the money prints it out of control (post-WW1-to-pre-Nazi Germany).
Sing it loud!
I assume you’re referring to unending public debt and the Great Depression Part 2?
With any luck it’ll be the kick in the ass people need to seize control of their respective nations’ fiat currency and issue it only in forms that serve the Common Good of taxpaying citizens.
Hopefully people wise up before it comes to that, though…
What was that quote about the Truth?
First it’s ridiculed (kook!), then violently opposed, and finally accepted as self-evident?
Hopefully people are smart enough to skip step 2.
ElbowStrike
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
texasguy,
All right, I give: I know ron paul kicks ass.
Wait.
All right, correction: ron paul does not kick ass.
JeffR
More like “Ron Paul gets his ass kicked”.
[/quote]
Mick,
You and I both know the only reason we don’t like ron paul is that some nebulous entity called the “establishment” or the “machine” has brainwashed us.
That includes most people in New Hampshire. Remember they have a long history of doing whatever the “machine” says.
Oh, wait.
JeffR
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
orion wrote:
Likewise commodity money is the norm and fiat monies always were aberrations that failed sooner or later.
The problem with “commodity money” like the gold standard is that gold, in and of itself, is fiat money. It only has value because people believe it has value.
Also, an economy needs a healthy inflation rate of 1-3% to keep money flowing. This can only be accomplished by slowly and consistently increasing the money supply.
Fiat money was wonderful for the 13 colonies, worked quite well in Canada 1935-1974, and dare-I-mention rose 1930’s Germany from an economic shit-hole to a dangerous empire that challenged the world.
It’s only when fiat money is created and issued as debt by private interests does the system break down. That and when whoever is creating the money prints it out of control (post-WW1-to-pre-Nazi Germany).
[/quote]
Even if gold had no industrial purpose, which it has, it would still not be fiat money if people choose to believe it is worth something.
A price that is determined by market forces is the very opposite of “fiat”, nobody ordered gold to be anything. It may be that gold is valuable because it is shiny and scarce, but I trust peoples vanity and yearning for social status as a psychological constant more than any central bank.
Then the theory that inflation is somehow necessary is popular but debatable. Granted, the constant growth of capital stock is historically unique and would lead to a constant light deflation but that has not hurt the computer industry so far, where a slight deflation is still the norm.
Plus, cui bono? Who is this supposed increased economic growth supposed to benefit? It undoubtedly constantly transfers wealth from fixed incomes to investors so how is this alleged economic growth is the interest of “the people”.
Finally fiat money may have worked to some degree for a few decades here and there, the point is, it always failed in the end. What good does it do me to have a few good decades with a violent revolution or war at the end?
It is a political boom bust cycle, that is all.
Usually wipes out the middle class and leads to tyranny so maybe to force economic growth is not such a good idea.