or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

. - Page 15

post #701 of 1137


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 the UN does pose a threat to US sovereignty.

 

 

 

Well, it was great conversing with you, Barry!

 

Let's go, everyone! We put up a damn good fight. But we've lost him. He's gone. Let's give a few words of remembrance for the man who was once rational enough to even consider if he should or should not vote for Ron Paul. He has his answer now, and we have ours. 

post #702 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:26pm
post #703 of 1137

 

Quote:

Not true! You posted...
 

 

Totally fair, I didn't notice, my bad.

 

 

Quote:

Look, I have no idea if the peaceful methods used by other countries would have been successful in ending slavery in the US but I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. I think it's important to point out that he's taken the exact same stance on at least three occasions on national television:

 

HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DmhRBHZrKc

 

CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks The News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CigdTwwO7-I

 

NBC's Meet The Press:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0


 

And back to yelling at you.

 

Paul's ideas on how to end slavery and avoid the civil war sound awfully good when it's just short one minute long snippets. 'Let's pay off all the slave owners and buy their slaves! That way we'll be able to avoid a costly civil war" sounds kind of like the hippie-dippy solutions to our problems we should practice a lot more instead of killing people.

 

Problem is, Ron Paul neglects to mention HOW important slavery was to the South. Namely that economic powers in the southern United States were not interested in ending the institution of industrialized slavery. Their entire economy, culture and lifestyle was based on slavery. Many may have sold their slaves, but many more would not, or would simply relocate and purchase more of them.

Shit, at the time the south were seeking to expand the number of slave holding states entering the union. Territory taken after the Mexican-American war was targeted by them for this very reason. The main reason the northern dominated Congress refused to expropriate more than the 55% of Mexico than The United States did, was simply to prevent the south from expanding slavery into the deeper reaches of Mexico past Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

 

But you see, Ron Paul ignores most of that or tries to shift things around a bit. Each interview has him mention how the war "must have been faught for other reasons" which is practically a codified dog-whistle for neo-confederate "lost cause" historical revisionists. Groups of people who for years have been trying* to change the way we look at history and show the South as a group of states with a proud aristocratic tradition, and a willingness to defend their "rights" and homeland with a heroic yet doomed attempt at war. And a good part of that history is attempting to downplay slavery's importance, ignore or distort black voices from that time, and create a narrative of the Southerners themselves as those oppressed.

 

 

But like I said, I put up with this historical revisionism constantly, and have spent enough time listening to that bullshit that I know Ron Paul is talking shifty when he opens his mouth.

 

*One could argue that they have changed it.
 

post #704 of 1137

That is what I don't understand.  If the civil war was mostly about state's rights underneath it all, how does buying the slaves make states give up those rights, particularly if they are doing well?

 

Also if the UN is being said to impinge on US sovereignty, despite its permanent member status, and technically this is true I'd say, doesn't that also hold for a number of other regional and trade agreements?  The G12, NAFTA, NATO, APEC, OECD etc (and some of these he has already mentioned).  The specifics vary in each, but all international agreements involve some tacit in-principle surrender of absolute sovereignty by their very nature (usually covered by ultimate recognition of such somewhere in the fine print so you can back out of anything).

I wonder if Paul couldn't pull that argument any time other countries are permitted to at least try and tell the US what to do.

post #705 of 1137

My mind is melting, the thread keeps doing this to me.

Movementarian_Mel.jpg

post #706 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

Not so fast. I'm still neutral on this topic. I was merely recognizing that there is a sovereignty trade-off. I wasn't making a value judgment of it. Clearly, if you believe that the UN is a force for peace in the world, then the loss of sovereignty is worth it. Fair enough.

 

Be nice if you just answered the questions ... how does the UN threaten our sovereignty?

 

Do you agree with Paul's view that the UN is a threat to our property, religious and gun owning rights? How so? He's been saying this for more than a decade ...

 

Stop dancing around this.

post #707 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:26pm
post #708 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

If our sovereignty is defined by the supremacy of our Constitution and federal government, then any authority that seeks to supersede them is a threat.

 

 

How is the UN trying to supersede the authority of the constitution? Examples? I mean, I'm sure you have that opinion based on something specific? You've had plenty of time to google it .. Keep in mind, you are saying Paul is not an isolationist, but the way you are interpreting it is proving the point without have to resort to the Paulian, "non-interventionist" excuse.

 

I'm also wondering, do you see trade agreements and treaties as things that supersede our constitution?

 

 

Quote:
 

No, because I don't know the specifics of why he believes those particular rights are threatened.

 

 

So you don't have your own opinions? What does this answer even mean?

 

Quote:
 

You want something from me that I can't give you.

 

 

I want simple and honest answers, yeah not really getting that.

 

BTW, again, you think a speech about the Civil War in front of a big confederate flag is not a problem?

post #709 of 1137

I haven't really been following this thread but have occasionally popped in here lately to read the back and forth about the UN threatening United States sovereignty.  The general consensus for this belief is that Article 29, Sec 3 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights seems to supercede any and all state Constitutions if provisions in those documents go against the United Nations.

 

Hope this helps, Cap.

post #710 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

I suppose.

 

Ever heard how he feels in general about such things?  (probably goes back to the 'Isolationism or not' discussion a couple of pages back.  I'm not necessarily against that actually, and suspect Paul arguably is one, but it's a bit of a dirty word so he's going to duck the label).

 

What do you think about it then?  Given that even to the archest Libertarians life is give and take agreements between entities, could the US theoretically ever enter a contract with one or more other nations and be held to account for breaking that contract?  (would not surprise me at all if Paul ultimately thought it was not the place of nation states' governments to be making such agreements in the first place)

post #711 of 1137

  If the US has given up any sovereignty to the UN, then how come the UN did nothing to stop the invasion of Iraq? They where against it remember.

post #712 of 1137

Not to mention, the UN isn't some singular, centralized organization. It's a meeting ground. Unless you think letting other nations have an opinion about what we do to the rest of the world constitutes "giving up sovereignty."

post #713 of 1137

Unfuckingbelievable. DO NOT ENGAGE HIM, PEOPLE.

post #714 of 1137

For fuck's sake, the Constitution explicitly foresees the United States entering into treaties.  The notion that the UN or any international body to which the United States belongs to willingly is constitutionally suspect is the height of stupidity.  The United States can voluntarily surrender its sovereignty to an international body as long as the Senate approves the treaty by a two-thirds majority.

post #715 of 1137

People who fear the UN aren't doing it for any rational reasons.

 

Dollars to doughnuts you start asking anti-UN types what their collective deal is, and you will see some scary political views pop out.

post #716 of 1137
Ron's son, Rand, had to be escorted out of an airport by law enforcement personnel today after setting off a metal detector and refusing to consent to a pat down.

Stop making me appreciate the TSA, Paul family.
post #717 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Ron's son, Rand, had to be escorted out of an airport by law enforcement personnel today after setting off a metal detector and refusing to consent to a pat down.
Stop making me appreciate the TSA, Paul family.


He set off a metal detector!  That's something that would get you a wand and potential pat-down, even before the TSA!

post #718 of 1137

You forgot the best part: he was on his way to an anti-abortion rally.

 

I really, really hope he said some variation on "hands off my body!"

post #719 of 1137

Yawn....*cracks neck* been awhile....since I've posted.

 

Anyways, this is a nice article I found on Ron Paul and his shitty history and policies that obviously favor one race over another.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211810446786665.html

post #720 of 1137

Getting thrown out was probably the smartest move, politically - he'd have a tough time explaining that bloody coathanger to his audience.

post #721 of 1137

That AJ piece answers the question posed in the thread title pretty well. 

post #722 of 1137
Ron Paul's press release on the incident, released just hours later, reveals the incident as a publicity stunt to raise money for Paul's Presidential campaign.
post #723 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:26pm
post #724 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

 

AP was wrong. Turns out Ron Paul was buying refundable coach tickets at the government rate and occasionally getting free first-class upgrades with his frequent flyer miles. Lawrence O'Donnell, looking to crucify Paul for his hypocrisy, instead uncovered the truth...


hmmm...."government rate"...well, that certainly sounds like he was using his political position in order to avoid paying the full 'free market' price for an airplane ticket like the average joe would have to.

I can't help but think that a true libertarian wouldn't rely on a "government discount" since the politician could then be beholden to the company giving the discount....it's almost like Paul is getting some sort of indirect welfare...

 

biggrin.gif

 

 

post #725 of 1137

Poor hit-piece then, mea culpa.

 

Any response to the Al Jazeera article?

post #726 of 1137
Americablog's Steve Kyle breaks down in plain language why the Federal Reserve was created, and what vulnerabilities would be created by eliminating it.
post #727 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Any response to the Al Jazeera article?



Are you kidding? Barry's not going to answer anything he can't deflect with a string of YouTube videos.

post #728 of 1137
The al Jazeera op-ed was posted on Disinformation, a website that I think was geared toward a smarter audience before it began crowdsourcing for articles, just today.

The tsunami of Ronulan spam that has emerged there shouldn't be read while sober. The damn thing reads like a seminar on how to follow faulty premises to absurd conclusions with shitty logic.
post #729 of 1137

let's throw some more gasoline on this fire.... :)

 

it's lengthy, so a few excerpts

Quote:

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

 

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

 

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

 

Quote:

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

 

 

post #730 of 1137
Pig pile on Grandpa Ron!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americablog 
It was always obvious that Ron Paul knew the content of the newsletters that went out in his name. Like the fact that Romney pays less than 15% tax and the fact George W. Bush and his cabinet were lying about WMD in Iraq, it was one of those obvious facts that the establishment media refused to discuss while the Republican involved protested their innocence.

But don't expect the confirmation of the obvious fact that Ron Paul wrote and approved the racist bile printed under his name to hurt him in the nomination race, the reason his opponents haven't mentioned the issue is that they know their party too well: The modern GOP is built on racism. Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' was courting the votes of white supremacists upset by the end of segregation.

Like the Iraqi WMD fable, Paul's alibi is even more damning than what he is trying to cover up :

Mark Elam, a longtime Paul associate whose company printed the newsletters, said Paul “was a busy man” at the time. “He was in demand as a speaker; he was traveling around the country,’’ Elam said in an interview coordinated by Paul’s campaign. “I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff.’’

So what Paul admits to is that he was lying to the people who had paid their money for a newsletter that would give them the benefit of his inside Washington knowledge. But now he claims to have defrauded them: not only wasn't he writing it, he wasn't even bothering to read it either.

The story the secretary tells is much more believable: Like every politician I have ever known, Ron Paul was deeply involved in every aspect of the communications that went out under his name. He didn't engage in casual racism; the racism was calculated to connect with his readers.

We are now down to the final four and the remaining candidates are a racist gold-bug conspiracy monger, an adulterer, a sex-freak and a 0.01%-er who pays 14% tax and mistreated his dog. In their different ways they each represent a different aspect of the GOP base. What the media has all wrong is that these are not 'weaknesses', they are the real core values of the GOP. The median GOP voter is a white male chicken hawk who pays next to nothing in taxes, hates black people, latinos and 'immigrants' and professes a deep belief in the importance of family values despite the fact he is cheating on both his wife and his mistress.

Like all the other commentators, we have it all wrong, what the GOP is looking for is not 'none of the above', it is all of the above.
post #731 of 1137

Barry, to answer your question, No! You shouldn't vote for Ron Paul. That said, we all know you want still want him to be president.I give you credit for this, at least you vote. The same can't be said for a lot of Americans.

post #732 of 1137

summed up in 4 panels....


2d971e5023ba012f2fcb00163e41dd5b

post #733 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

Barry, to answer your question, No! You shouldn't vote for Ron Paul. That said, we all know you want still want him to be president.I give you credit for this, at least you vote. The same can't be said for a lot of Americans.


Except he's already said that if Ron's not on the ticket, he's not gonna vote. He's gonna take his ball and bat and go home.

 

post #734 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post


Except he's already said that if Ron's not on the ticket, he's not gonna vote. He's gonna take his ball and bat and go home.

 



Kinda like he's done with this thread.

post #735 of 1137

*Yawn* Yeah...Ron Paul and his putrid ideas. He is nothing but an apologist for bullies. Clearly he doesn't know the difference between negative and positive freedoms. Isaiah Berlin should be on his reading list, as opposed to those Austrian shit heads. Karl Polanyi nicely mopped the floor with them.

 

The funniest shit I read on this thread was when Woodward said Paul was an Economist. No degree, no profession, no dice. Let me read 70 medical textbooks and then say I'm a doctor.

 

 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126104319126570.html

 

Some agree and some disagree, but obviously the Austrian dude does.

post #736 of 1137
The Atlantic has more on the growing number of current and former Paul supporters who claim that the racism of Paul's newsletters was a calculated means to bilk money from incurious hillbillies.

The editor's commentary:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlantic Senior Editor Ta-Nehisi Coates 
As I've said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is "good" for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.


For added hilarity, the article linked contains some delightful Youtubage of Louis Farrakhan cheering Congresscreature Ron Paul for fighting the good fight against the Jewish bankers.
post #737 of 1137

Paul just won one of the most coveted endorsements: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/blogs/BlogtownPDX/#a5524061

post #738 of 1137

In a general election year when the most rational candidates is Ron Paul says alot about the Republican Party has become.

post #739 of 1137



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

In a general election year when the most rational candidates is Ron Paul says alot about the Republican Party has become.



We probably should not confuse Ron Paul being true to his ideals for Ron Paul being rational. A man like that can't have both.

 

post #740 of 1137

So has Barry finally decided that Dr. Paul isn't for him, I wonder?

post #741 of 1137

My guess is that Barry wasn't expecting for practically everybody to be opposed to Ron Paul on moral grounds in this thread.

post #742 of 1137

Surely he's got a YouTube video to answer that problem, though.

post #743 of 1137

Sure but it involves buying what Ron Paul is selling.

 

Barry wanted to show how progressive Ron Paul was, most everybody here on the other hand can probably agree that a dude so obsessed with property rights that he'd be against making places of business wheelchair accessible is a bit of a cunt.

post #744 of 1137

I think you guys are being rather mean by piling on Barry while he's not even here to defend himself.  And I'm not saying that just because there's a chance that he's only temporarily MIIA while he shaves his head and stocks up on munitions, canned goods and small arms.

post #745 of 1137

It is my right enshrined in the Constitution to be mean to Barry. DON'T TRY TO DAMAGE MY SOVEREIGNTY, SCHWARTZ.

post #746 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I think you guys are being rather mean by piling on Barry while he's not even here to defend himself.  And I'm not saying that just because there's a chance that he's only temporarily MIIA while he shaves his head and stocks up on munitions, canned goods and small arms.



 About a month before Y2K, I saw a gun store having a Y2K guns an ammo sale. Schwartz's comment is funny cause its true.


Edited by Chaz - 2/3/12 at 7:27pm
post #747 of 1137
In before "Anonymous slandered Ron Paul to protect the Establishment, which is totally a thing that Anonymous does."

(And when I say "before," I mean "that's the argument the Ronulans are already making on another site I frequent.")
post #748 of 1137

That's adorable.

post #749 of 1137

Jesus christ Barry's posts in this thread.

post #750 of 1137
Before visits to this thread end entirely, I'd like to take the time to thank the mods for letting EndTheFEDMafia's posts stand instead of erasing them and banning him. His early contributions helped turn this into one of the funniest threads I've ever seen here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse