PDA

View Full Version : The main problem is a lack of understanding...




Kalash
02-05-2008, 09:17 PM
Here's an ongoing conversation over at http://bluelight.ru

There are some STRONG anti-Paul people out there.
My roommate is one of them.

The reason for this is a misconstruction of his policies by viewing them from a collectivist perspective.

Here's what's been said - and in case you come across some of these arguments, hopefully this will give you some ground to stand upon.


Ron's Nazi supporters set the record straight on their relationship with Dr. Paul (http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63682)

Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I don't know if Paul was ever personally there at these dinners, held by Peter B. Gemma, Jr. of Reston, VA. I consider Bill White an even less credible source for reliable information on reality than Ron Paul. Still, Ron Paul's campaign sure does like to visit that place on a regular basis. Here are the receipts. (http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/20/tara-thai-ron-paul-and-white-supremacists-fec-report-data/)

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/rpaul_010808_fresh.jpg



Awww, just because I don't want to toss 'ol doc Paul's salad, I guess I'm a bad guy. Boo-hoo! Nobody really seems to want a earnest examination of Dr. Paul -- just a feel-good Paultard circlejerk.



Sorry, you're being vague -- "section 10" of what? Of the extension of the Voting Rights Act that he stood up against in 2006? That would be the ban on poll taxes. Yes, I guess banning poll taxes is "main stream", but perhaps you're referring to soemthing else. Go on; let's hear it.

I love the idea of getting tips on facts and reality for Ronulans. =D Surely, Paultards have a keen, objective grasp of reality, and it's just the rest of that ignore the glaring ugly facts. I "use only the facts that fit my agenda"? I'm sorry, we're talking about a Repblican candidate that wants to ban abortion, wants to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, doesn't think that the Separation of Church and State is worth preserving, wants to scrap the EPA and OSHA, and allow states to discriminate against minority voters as they see fit. He's also got a fanatical following among hate groups and Christian reconstructionists. This is a civil libertarian?! m'kay, I'll have to remember that.

Fercrissakes, if you really are that strongly opposed to the drug war and Iraq war that much (certainly understandable), there are third party candidates who have just as much of a chance of winning as he does... but without the freaky baggage.

The fact that Ron doesn't stand a chance of winning is at least proof that the system isn't completely broken. :p I can at least take comfort in that.


Old Today, 18:06 View your Warnings #281
Kalash
Bluelighter
Kalash's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,394
Online:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzy
Since when are public endorsements from the John Birch Society, Vanguard News and Stormfront considered "main stream media"? This is the far right, circling around Their Man in Washington. You have nobody to blame but Ron Paul and his nazi fanboys for this one.

Do "all ron paul supportes" know that their boy voted against extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2006? That's not exactly the kind of antics you'd expect for somebody who cares about civil rights -- certainly not from a Libertarian. It's something you'd expect from a white nationalist, or an unreformed neo-confederate, but certainly not from somebody who wants everybody to have equal rights.

If you don't like it, then pick a different candidate -- one who isn't the darling of the far right.



You're being ignorant here.

You're making the same arguments as my roommate... who believes Ron Paul is anti-gay.

It's ignorant insanity.


The issue was tapped before - there are no "group rights" according to Ron Paul.

There are no black rights.... jewish rights... gay rights... women's rights...


There are ONLY individual rights.

YES - Ron Paul voted against the Voting Rights act.
Why? Because he believes it creates SPECIAL GROUP RIGHTS and contributes to racism.


However it takes someone with a collectivist (i.e. GROUP rights that are superior to individual rights; the good of the group is greater than the needs/rights/liberties of the individual) mindset (such as yourself) to harbor racism.

Ron Paul believes in a philosophy of individualism.
Until you understand this fundamental difference in outlook, YES - he looks like a gay hating racist bastard.

But he isn't.
You are more of a racist simply by believing in such things.


http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html - counter that.
Then counter his opinions.

If you can't, don't bring up other completely debunked backwards slanderous comments about Ron Paul.
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Kalash
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Kalash
Send email to Kalash
Visit Kalash's homepage!
Find More Posts by Kalash
Add Kalash to Your Buddy List



Old Today, 18:30 View your Warnings #282
Kalash
Bluelighter
Kalash's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,394
Online:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzy
Sorry, you're being vague -- "section 10" of what? Of the extension of the Voting Rights Act that he stood up against in 2006? That would be the ban on poll taxes. Yes, I guess banning poll taxes is "main stream", but perhaps you're referring to soemthing else. Go on; let's hear it.

No clue. Don't care. That wasn't the main reason for voting against it - see previous post.

Quote:
I love the idea of getting tips on facts and reality for Ronulans. Surely, Paultards have a keen, objective grasp of reality, and it's just the rest of that ignore the glaring ugly facts. I "use only the facts that fit my agenda"? I'm sorry, we're talking about a Repblican candidate that wants to ban abortion

Misnomer.
He wants to assert that a fetus is a person - with rights - and has proposed a constitutional amendment granting a fetus equal rights under the constitution.

This is the same thing that was done with slavery.
The slave owners saw blacks as property - not people.
Abortionist see a fetus as a part of the woman - not a person in and of itself.

Ron Paul is trying to abolish "slavery" of the fetus - the property assumption that the "owner" can do as they please with their property - when that property is a human life.

Quote:
wants to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage,

Misnomer.
He doesn't want the government to recognize marriage.
He is not opposed to civil ceremonies of unions - but is against state sponsored marriage in general - not just for homosexual couples.

Yes - he is against gay marriage - but he is also against STRAIGHT marriage being recognized by the state.

Quote:
doesn't think that the Separation of Church and State is worth preserving,

Misnomer.
He believes that the separation of Church and State has been breeched by the government prohibiting religious speech in public.
It is a strong 1st amendment rights position.

You're claiming he wants to make the church and state the same thing.
That's completely untrue.
He is simply oppoosed to government mandates on the prohibition of freedom of expression when it comes to religious views.
He wants to RE-separate the church and state.

Quote:
wants to scrap the EPA and OSHA, and allow states to discriminate against minority voters as they see fit.

Misnomer.
With some basis in truth.

He wants to scrap governmental institutions which have created corporatism.
He wants to abolish laws be believes infringe upon the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the owners.
He is against affirmative action laws because they do not aide a free market and introduce reverse racism.
He firmly believes in personal liberty - to the point that a business OWNER has the RIGHT to run their business as they see fit.

However he is a firm believer in equal RIGHTS - not UNEQUAL privileges.
This means that the property owner has RIGHTS - to refuse service, and refuse persons the privilege of employment.

There is no GOD GIVEN RIGHT to work for another man on his property - that is a privilege granted to you by that man.
There is no right to enter another's property without their permission.

You need to figure out the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES before we can continue this discussion (if you care to...)

http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html - Michael Bernadark discusses this in lesson #1 of his Constitution class.

Quote:
He's also got a fanatical following among hate groups and Christian reconstructionists. This is a civil libertarian?! m'kay, I'll have to remember that.

You're not thinking here.
He is strongly supportive of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

If I want to cut myself and bleed to death - that is my right. It's my body. I own myself.
If I want to touch you - that is a privilege YOU must grant to me.
If I want to talk to you - that is a RIGHT - of free speech.

You cannot support free speech while suppressing the free speech of any group you disagree with.
That defeats the purpose.

You don't have to agree with them to permit them to speak - or even to permit them to support you.
Each man is solely responsible for his beliefs and words.
They cannot be passed to another simply because the speaker endorses the other person.


Quote:
Fercrissakes, if you really are that strongly opposed to the drug war and Iraq war that much (certainly understandable), there are third party candidates who have just as much of a chance of winning as he does... but without the freaky baggage.

HA!
That's so untrue it's not even funny.
And I have yet to see this illusionary baggage.

He thinks differently.
He speaks differently - because he has a different philosophy.

If you can't understand him - that's your loss...
Not his fault for harboring positions you attribute to him that he does not harbor.


Quote:
The fact that Ron doesn't stand a chance of winning is at least proof that the system isn't completely broken. I can at least take comfort in that.

The fact that Ron Paul does have a chance of winning - and would probably have won if he had more unbiased media coverage - shows that the system is broken...

And the people are beaten... whipped into submission - so that they no longer recognize their chance for freedom when the prison door is opened and the freedom fighters stand there inviting you out of your cell, showing you the subdued guard.



The democrats don't care about RIGHTS - they care about special interest PRIVILEGES to the detriment of those outside the special interests.

The republicans don't care about RIGHTS - they care about a power grab for their own special interests.


Ron Paul is the only candidate that is opposed to special interests.
He's the only one talking about personal freedom - and how the cost is personal responsibility.

He's the only one talking about the REAL problems - and how to solve them... Not just promising to patch things up on the surface - passing out more PRIVILEGES to the masses while further bankrupting the nation...
Or perpetuating the war based upon lies for the benefit of special interests...

And you turn your back to him because you are ignorant of his philosophy and therefore misconstrue his positions.

You and my roommate both need to rethink your positions on Ron Paul.
If he had a collectivist philosophy, you would be correct.
But he does not. You do. And you need to learn to think in a different philosophy to understand what he's saying.

If you look at the surface of a lake, you miss all that lay beneath.
If you look at the tip of the iceberg, you miss the majority of its mass.


Stop looking at the surface and making assumptions.
Or you'll go down like the Titanic because you missed what lay beneath...

Jeremy
02-05-2008, 09:18 PM
The thing about freedom is that people don't even know what it is anymore. If only everyone knew what was going on in Washington...

MGreen
02-05-2008, 09:20 PM
They sound like democrats. In which case, it's not a lack of understanding, it's a refusal to understand.

tomveil
02-05-2008, 09:22 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't care.

People deserve the government they get.

Maybe they'll be drafted and change their minds.

Kalash
02-05-2008, 09:24 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't care.

People deserve the government they get.

Maybe they'll be drafted and change their minds.

That isn't gonna help.


Do we deserve what they're voting for?


Constitutional Republic.

The majority DOES NOT rule.
The rights of the minority group are protected from infringement by a majority vote.

That's why we have a constitutional republic - NOT an absolute democracy or an ABSOLUTE republic.

IRO-bot
02-05-2008, 09:26 PM
The thing about freedom is that people don't even know what it is anymore. If only everyone knew what was going on in Washington...

+1 You are now in my signarture!

tomveil
02-05-2008, 09:27 PM
That isn't gonna help.


Do we deserve what they're voting for?


Constitutional Republic.

The majority DOES NOT rule.
The rights of the minority group are protected from infringement by a majority vote.

That's why we have a constitutional republic - NOT an absolute democracy or an ABSOLUTE republic.

I understand what you're saying.

But things are going to get worse. You know it, and I know it. And when it does, maybe they'll rethink things.

You can't convince people using the language that they are using by arguing with them. They have to do it themselves when they actually realize what's going on.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
02-05-2008, 09:27 PM
nice, respectful replies to an anger-ridden collectivist... but I wouldn't waste anymore time on them if they refuse the gift you have just given.

When someone is that asleep, only a very close loved one or suffering can wake them up.

Kalash
02-05-2008, 09:27 PM
+1 You are now in my signarture!


No one knows the difference between RIGHT and PRIVILEGES any more either.
Rights are greater than the government...
Privileges are granted by the government - and they can be taken away...


http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html

armand61685
02-05-2008, 09:28 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but I don't care.

People deserve the government they get.

Maybe they'll be drafted and change their minds.

+1

Kalash
02-05-2008, 09:50 PM
nice, respectful replies to an anger-ridden collectivist... but I wouldn't waste anymore time on them if they refuse the gift you have just given.

When someone is that asleep, only a very close loved one or suffering can wake them up.


Then the question is - are we wrong?
Is the collectivist philosophy better than the individualist philosophy?


Should we forgo the constitution and become a collectivist-socialist state and be done with it?



-Not to sound like I'm giving up, but because I'm seriously wondering.
The longer we have these competing philosophies, the longer our nation struggles to come to terms with itself.

If we truly are the minority - should we concede?


(This, coming from the person that wrote a second declaration of independence (http://new.revolutioni.st) in case Paul had a weak showing today....)

Goldwater Conservative
02-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Then the question is - are we wrong?
Is the collectivist philosophy better than the individualist philosophy?

That question wouldn't even have to be asked if the collectivists let the individualists have so much as an acre of land to form a free society on, but they can't have that.

Anyway, the racist links have been repeatedly disproven. Paul goes to many rallies, dinners, etc. where there a lot of passionate libertarians and paleoconservatives, which does include some white nationalists and separatists. So there are least two self-selections going on: (1) only the passionate go to these things or organize them, and (2) a lot of these people with "controversial" views are tired of the government telling them how to live their lives beyond protecting everyone's right to life, liberty, and property.

Exarel
02-05-2008, 10:10 PM
I wish there was a good website that helped communicate these ideas and this philosophy. It would be a lot more effective than having to dance around tables in arguments.