Hey, at least the moderators didn't just delete it. Try asking a question like that in the "unofficial" Fred Thompson boards. You can literally watch it vanish.
My first choice for president would be Ron Paul. Mostly because he speaks from the heart (sounds corny). I also consider his lack of party support as proof that he's not part of the groupthink that dominates the Republican party. Do I agree with everything Ron Paul says? Hell no, but I'm willing to vote for somebody who seems like a real person instead of some party crony.Originally Posted by lucky
I've stated in the introductions thread that I'm a liberal, but I'm tired of the government acting in an irresponsible manner. I think the government can shrink in a lot of areas too. Mostly I'm at odds with Paul's beliefs when it comes to economic issues. I'm willing to give "Fair Tax" a chance. On foriegn policies Ron Paul seems to be the only guy who knows what the hell he's talking about, and not just because he's against the war. He's pointed out that the methodology was wrong at that people are going to war when they don't even know the history of the area.
My second choice for prez is a toss-up between Edwards and Obama.
I got banned from Conservapedia for copy/pasting the Wiki entry of "orgasm" into their definitions
This is why.
Also I am expecting this exact attack to start this week and then voila it does.
Just old enough to have seen all this before.
Apologize. I am cynical and all but would like to welcome you to the forums. Please check out the other ideas of Ron Paul and feel free to ask anything. There is always something to not like about someone even if that one thing is a red herring.
The economics thing had me for many years but after reading and studying it for years I finally have just a handle on it.
I would be interested in the the sources and the full context of all these purported quotes to begin with. Pulling out random quotes and casting them into isolation is completely unfair because if we are to assume these are legitimate quotes, there is no telling what the set up question or previous comment was.
Second, I think it would do us all good to not automatically throw around the term 'racist' at every remark anyone ever makes that includes, as part of it, an element of race. Saying that some people are taught to hate others is not 'racist', it is a qualitative judgement that one can support or dispute with evidence. Similarly, it is a quantitative statement to comment on the demographics of a situation, place, or occurance (e.g. a crime).
Regardless, given that Dr. Paul has never been accused of 'racism' up to this point, I seriously question the motives of those posting this information on the Internet and those who are trying to create a major controversy out of it.
The quotes I'm seeing don't seem racist at all! They do describe complex and sensitive issues, however. It's easy to misread. I'll list the first page of forum posts:
"The Trouble With Forced Integration" - I don't see what is racist here. Ron says that forced integration has deepened, rather than helped, the racial divisions in America. The establishment of racial quotas and institutionalized divisions between people based on their skin, has promoted racism rather than healed it. Look for the key condensed sentences: "Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." and "Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites" - again, this isn't racism... this is just a very ugly fact. Over 75% of people incarcerated for drug-related offences are African-American. More than 2/3rds of all inmates across America are racial minorities. One in eight black males in their twenties is in jail on any given day. I do think that the phrasing of "they are trained to hate whites" is unfortunate - from the rest of his writings, it seems that he believes that MANY african-americans are trained as children to hate whites. Living in a very racially divided city (Cincinnati), I can tell you - it's true! Awful, but true. The anecdotal evidence seems fine to me too... it's a reverse-discrimination event, just like any other. Cincy had race riots in 2001. Does recounting the stories of racial hatred against whites make me racist? Or just honest about the dreadful state of race relations, from both sides of the divide?
"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America." Again, I don't see any racism here. most white americans are not going to believe that white americans are responsible for what blacks have done to cities across america. Again, statistically an enormous percentage of incarcerated criminals are african-american, and historically, a lot of the criminal culture in the black community is a result of the oppression they have felt at the hands of white america... this is a major subject in the fight against racial divisions. Ron is stating a part of the issue, that white america has a hard time accepting blame for the race problem, or that there even IS a statistically demonstrated racial culture factor to criminal behavior. as he puts it, "This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."
None of this seems racist to me. The first quote is a very standard argument against government racial intervention - one that I support, as it happens. In the next, Paul is not saying that people are criminals BECAUSE they are black. He is saying that white americans have a hard time accepting responsibility for the high occurrence of criminal behavior among black people.
PS - drinkbleach, note my emphasis in the sentence about identifying these "terrorists" by the color of their skin:
"Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." ie, people have a hard time AVOIDING the racist mindset. This again, is an established part of mainstream concerns about racism in America.
And now I'm reading the rest of the comments in this thread, and I'm amazed... All these people, backing a candidate who so strongly supports the constitution, and they're damming bleach for bringing up a topic they don't like?
Get a grip, guys. Honest discussion of issues - especially the distasteful ones - is key to a functioning rational process. I'm on Bleach's side here: he's right to bring up the question, and he did it in a way that promotes debate. That would make him a very good democrat (small d), and a very poor neocon.
There is no damning him on this. There is a thread on this already and we let him know. On the other matter and since I said there was a thread and has been discussed we also know where and what the articles and other things said. He seemed to be just pulling out the quotes a little at a time and this is what trolls do and we questioned it is all.
We welcomed him and any discussion on this matter.
Which would you rather have?
A. 1 of the 3 "top-tier" candidates who you know will lie to you and is an enemy to freedom?
or
B. 1 man who's honesty is beyond question, who has been a consistant campion of liberty, but might be a racist based on 1 article he didn't even write?
Last edited by mconder; 05-30-2007 at 02:37 PM.
I don't think any conservatives would even find any of those comments posted to be racist. The problem is that many or even most of Paul's supporters are coming from the left, so any statements that aren't PC are taboo to them. Expect more of this. To liberals, political correctness will always be more important than honesty, even if the effects of maintaining PC thought are disastrous.
I hesitated for a moment, but I've already stated I'd rather vote for somebody whom I disagree with but speaks honestly. That's Paul.
Please provide the sources of the quotes your posting.
I know for a fact that quote is from a Libertarian news letter that RP wrote, or writes, in. However, during his campaigns he often had guest writers fill in for him and on one occasion a guest writer, in the "Ron Paul" column of the newsletter, wrote those comments. It was a controversial point for a little while, but was cleared up until recently when people started spreading the comments around the internet.
The first statement about the civil rights act of 1964 doesn't sound racist at all. That is the view that a lot of people had about quotas, and it is a big factor for why we no longer have them.
I am a libertarian and I found the statements offensive. Much of America will too. Thank goodness they aren't his words!
I stated that I came across these comments while on another forum. I brought the quotes to THIS forum to be discussed amongst Paul supporters.
You say you’re a liberal, and why do you label yourself? Are you a commodity? I think human beings are too complex to be labeled. I used to consider myself a “Republican Conservative” but soon realized that I wasn’t born this way. I was socially engineered to think this way to serve the establishment. I now call myself a human being who happens to be an American by birth best defined by the Constitution. I have woken up to the “Hegelian Dialectical Game” that makes us either Democrats or Republicans which weakens the people by design. The other 2nd tier parties exist, but will never gain any influence under the current system. I think liberalism is a good thing, but only on the local level within our communities where we have full accounting at all times. The federal government can never take care of the people unless they want to live under tyranny. Governments are controlled by the elites, behind the scenes, often playing the role of the philanthropist with their “Foundations”, but that’s nothing but a ruse. What's the best answer between the liberals vs. Conservatives? Its already been answered if you read between the lines. The center will serve the public interest, and the establishment knows this all to well.
Liberal poles / Conservative Poles
god-men / god-fearing
materialism / spiritualism
love / hate
evil by nature / good by nature
unionism / hierarchical authoritarianism
primacy of proletariat / primacy of bourgeoisie
communism / dialectical capitalism
democracy / oligarchism
randomness / order
Maitreyanism / Christianity
multiculturalism / chauvinism
nihilism / orthodoxy
extremist conservationism / laissez faire environmentalism
sexual liberalism / sexual regimentation
radical feminism / patriarchicalism
pro-choice / pro-life
state paternalists / parental sovereigntists
economic totalitarianism / moral totalitarianism
lawlessness / studious regulatory conformity
permissiveness and apologism / draconian law enforcement
drugs are good / war on drugs
state nihilism / state religion
gun-grabbers / discretionary incarceration
Last edited by 4Horsemen; 05-30-2007 at 06:03 PM.
Having seen some of the hatred filled threads that Eric Dondero has created elsewhere, it wouldn't surprise me the least if he was the one that wrote them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us