or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

. - Page 19

post #901 of 1137

This might be germane also:

 

post #902 of 1137

God damn Barry, why did you have to come back and ruin it for me?

 

I almost feel like I shouldn't ask this but I'm going to. Wouldn't the last 120ish years of American history show that we are successful because we don't adhere so strictly to the property rights and the incorrect view of the Constitution that Ron Paul is obsessed with? We don't live in a world where people do what is in their best interest and we never have. The Federal government has expanded it's power because the Constitution was written in a way that allows it and because states wouldn't do what is in the best interest of the country. It was what we needed to make this country successful and I have yet to read anything from you that indicates you understand that.

 

 


Edited by Dan Baker - 2/9/12 at 7:21am
post #903 of 1137

The fact that we have all these regulations in place regarding businesses pretty much puts a lie to Barry's idea that without them, businesses will just do the right thing by their customers.  Because if that were the case, we wouldn't have needed the regulations in the first place.

post #904 of 1137

Ahh but, in the revisionist history, that's always because of some other government regulation mis-shaping the market.

 

Anyway, Baz is brave coming back to all this I must say. He probably wouldn't raise people's ire if he seemed more... discursive, I suspect. 

Personally, while I think Paul gets more critical attention than he probably warrants and is disliked by the press and the rest of politics more than he deserves,  this discussion over all does point out that, policy aside, philosophy or ideology actually matter a lot to people in deciding who to vote for.  Paul's happens to be in some peculiar place a lot of people don't like.

post #905 of 1137



 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

I will give Barry credit for one thing; I think he's a loon, but he's dealing with the barrage of naysayers he hast wrought via starting this ridiculous thread with a sense of calmness usually unaccustomed to any and all internet message boards.


 

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

 

A religious zealot convinced of their own correctness, unable to see or hear criticisms of the object of their devotion would seem incredibly calm yes. So do serial killers apparently.

  

 

Wow.  By the way, I tried to enumerate the amount of times you invoked "intellectual dishonesty" and my calculator broke.

post #906 of 1137

Barry, do you think the government forcibly integrating schools was a bad thing?  I'm not asking if you're pro-segregation in general, I'm talking about the government action.

post #907 of 1137

"Being the reasonable people the South was known for, the market would have eventually made them realize the error in segregation. It may have taken a bit longer, but the South has always shown an enormous amount of intelligence and understanding when it comes to the needs of its fellow man. Brown v. Board of Education was clearly an overstepping of bounds by the federal government. Both races should band together and boycott the true 'racists'."

 

There I answered the question for him.

post #908 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

His answer was comprised of words and since you're taking issue with the words he chose, it absolutely is true. Was he communicating in some other way that I wasn't aware of (hand gestures, Morse-code eye-blinks, etc.)?

Just caught this edit to your original answer (pretty fond of that little trick, aren't you?) and I thought I'd respond.

 

Jesus, that's some pretty basic binary thinking you're engaging in there, chief. Yes, he used words to communicate, you smug, snide asshole. You specifically were referincing the choice of words that he used ("honest") as poor (correcting him with the word "accurate," which---hey!---turns out is almost equally offensive) and I was trying to get you to engage with the rest of his shitty answer, which you refused to do and later said that you had no problem with ("best Ron Paul can do --- let's make a deal, I won't consider what you want, but how 'bout an estrogen shot?"). In short, the choice of words you and I were referring to was not  his entire answer but the term honest. And in either case, choice of words isn't the only factor that goes into communicating your ideas. For example, there's consideration of audience. In this case, Paul was being terribly inconsiderate because the only person he was considering in this scenario was himself. What he would do. About a rape victim. Himself. What he would do. About a rape victim. Himself. What he would do. About a rape victim. 

 

The fact that I have to go back and re-direct our original conversation after your "clarifying" edits should tell you something, shouldn't it? 
 

 

post #909 of 1137

Barry sure is practicing that whole revisionist philosophy quite adeptly Parker, props to him for being a cunt to the core. 

CORECUNT.

 

post #910 of 1137

 

Quote:

Just caught this edit to your original answer (pretty fond of that little trick, aren't you?) and I thought I'd respond.

 

 

 

It's almost kinda cute.

post #911 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanCE View Post

Barry sure is practicing that whole revisionist philosophy quite adeptly Parker, props to him for being a cunt to the core. 

CORECUNT.

 



It's actually strange, coming from a guy whose beliefs and overall philosophy stems from one core document that takes a shitload of work to amend.

post #912 of 1137

Just ran into this thread and I haven't read all of it because... Jesus... But am I right in assuming that this is just 19 pages of people disagreeing with Barry?

post #913 of 1137

Yes.

 

Because his opinions are very silly.

post #914 of 1137

I think someone else mentioned it...?

 

I keep expecting this thread to turn out to be one of the most long drawn out piece of performance art in recent history....the "Tony Clifton" of forum discussions.

post #915 of 1137

Are people just not going to satisfied until Woodard, completely out of character, suddenly answers questions being thrown at him in exactly the way they wish them to be answered? That's pretty narcissistic to think you have that ability, especially after pages and pages of evidence to the contrary. I learned to dislike that kind of thing when I saw my mother arguing w/ one of my father's drunk friends over some bullshit when I was a kid. I realized that she just wanted to be hear herself talk.   

post #916 of 1137

I think it's a worthwhile thread, and a legitimate question. I know several people in professional life, who are staunch Ron Paul supporters.  

 

One of those is an unapologetic racist.

 

But I'm really surprised that apart from Barry and the one drive-by-troll, there haven't been others voicing their support.  The interwebs are so crowded with vocal Paul defenders.

post #917 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Are people just not going to satisfied until Woodard, completely out of character, suddenly answers questions being thrown at him in exactly the way they wish them to be answered? That's pretty narcissistic to think you have that ability, especially after pages and pages of evidence to the contrary. I learned to dislike that kind of thing when I saw my mother arguing w/ one of my father's drunk friends over some bullshit when I was a kid. I realized that she just wanted to be hear herself talk.   

 

What will satisfy me is when Barry starts being honest about the information being presented to him, or about the reasons for him even starting this thread.

 

Is this the same logic that says Princess Kate wasn't responsible for any of the shit her presence caused on these boards? Because I'm kinda getting sick and tired of assholes, idiots and - in this case - wilfully dishonest people being given a let-off whilst the focus is turned on those who have the temerity to get angry at what they have to say. Barry started this thread. Barry has perpetuated it. We have gotten pissed off at the constant dodging and backtracking and faux naivete he's been displaying.

 

I would happily never talk about Ron Paul again. I don't have a problem with people voicing their support for them - I think they're stupid or misinformed, but that's their prerogative. What I take issue with is some being dishonest about that support, starting a debate on the subject then ducking and weaving and dismissing any legitimate criticism all while refusing to outright state how they feel about key facets of the subject at hand. When people show the kind of niavete Barry seemingly has towards Paul about other political candidates they're laughed out of the room. If Barack Obama had put his name and signature to a newsletter promoting Jeremiah Wright's views his presidential campaign would've died on the vine. If GWB had multiple people from his past talking about his published racist, anti-semitic views he would've been roasted alive. But in this case Barry keeps on finding reasons to ignore this stuff, keeps on buying what Paul is selling despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. If there's a half-assed explanation, Hell, if Ron Paul SAYS that there's a half-assed explanation, Barry will take it and carry on.

 

And what KILLS me is that, as I've said, if he was just up-front about this stuff, if he said "well he does seem to hold some horribly unsavoury positions, but I'm voting for his foreign policy choices", I could let it drop. But I just can't bring myself to walk away from a guy being this infuriatingly blinkered. And sure, that's a problem with my character - stuff riles me, and I can't let it go. Maybe that's what Barry's looking for at this stage. Maybe not. But I'll be damned if people are now gonna start jumping in and pointing out how Barry's just saying what he believes in and we're the problem for expecting him to be otherwise and blah blah blah.

 

post #918 of 1137

19 pages, Andrew. By the looks of it you'll be tearing your hair out and typing furiously up until the second coming. I mean, maybe there's some great, educational conversation to be had but from what I've read this is the message board version of groundhog day.

 

In other words, learn how to use the ignore button. It'll do wonders for your blood pressure.

post #919 of 1137
Being irritated by Woodward's position is fine, but in your post you've revealed how weird and ultimately futile it is to argue with someone who has revealed himself to be impenetrable to debate. You will not achieve any measure of victory here because he will not allow you to.
post #920 of 1137

Which is fine. How does that make anyone here "narcisisstic"? Futile, sure. It's the tone of the posts that suggests those arguing with Barry are just as bad as he is that bugs me. I'm not looking for a "victory" here, and all of us are shouting into the wind. I'm just tired of those of us with half a brain being expected "rise above it". In the last ten years rising above it has accomplished fuck all.

post #921 of 1137

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

It's the tone of the posts that suggests those arguing with Barry are just as bad as he is that bugs me.

 

Well, Barry has yet to liken someone he's arguing against to a serial killer, so I'd say there's at least one participant he's not as bad as.

 

This thread makes for a pretty interesting read for reasons that transcend Ron Paul or any of his positions, and I thank all of you for that.  Since we're on the subject of things that bug us, does it make me a condescending asshole to waltz in here after not contributing to the discussion and register the teensiest bit of outrage (which I sort of hate that I'm the one inaugurating) at the non-ironic examples of the "You or your positions is tantamount to serial killers/fascism/communism/Nazis/the bad guy from that movie!!!!1111ELEVEN" schtick?  (Sure enough, Uncle Adolf got his mandatory shout-out recently.)  I really thought that shit was strictly the province of parody at this point.  There's truth in the following: if you abstract out the subject matter or pretend this thread is about a baseball team, it's easy to spot some textbook examples of people just plain old-fashioned being dicks, and frankly I'm not so sure Barry has produced any of them.

 

Just my two cents as someone who genuinely thinks that the discussion going on in threads like this are an asset to this board and this community.

post #922 of 1137

tumblr_lj71lu7j5b1qzgh35o1_500.jpg

post #923 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post There's truth in the following: if you abstract out the subject matter or pretend this thread is about a baseball team, it's easy to spot some textbook examples of people just plain old-fashioned being dicks, and frankly I'm not so sure Barry has produced any of them.


First things first: removing the subject matter changes the face of any discourse; none of us would feel this strongly if we were talking about Barry's choice of sock colour. Second things second: sliding into dickishness is understandable and perhaps even acceptable when the target of said ire is engaged in such dishonest behaviour. The very act of creating a thread under the guise of curiosity and then refusing to debate or engage with any of those who respond is in and of itself dickish. We're talking about a guy who repeatedly namechecked Paul's foreign policy stances as the Big Issue on which his vote would be based, only to claim that he's not familiar with Ron Paul's stance on the UN to judge it when Paul's whackadoo take on that organisation was laid bare. There's more to being a dick than calling someone mean names, and I'd say that starting a thread to either a)needle people or b)promote a guy like Paul under the guise of honest disccusion fits that bill.

post #924 of 1137

We're talking about a guy who's not only defending but actively supporting a candidate who honestly believes there's such a thing as "honest rape."  Sorry, but that shit needs to be met, not just shrugged off as, "Well, different strokes."

post #925 of 1137

The thing is that a huge portion of Paul's appeal is for being a straight shooter, who tells you what he believes and follows them their logical (if horrifying) conclusions without waffling.   Whereas Barry has made about 100 posts in this thread under a barrage of direct questioning and has studiously, impressively avoided saying much of anything at all.  I really don't know what he's getting out of this, since I can't imagine he believes that page after page of one sentence non-answers are actually doing anything to change anyone's mind.

post #926 of 1137

And I like to needle Barry because of the hot latin blood that flows through my veins.

 

 

Also I'm on my period and want to claw all of your motherfucking eyes out.

post #927 of 1137

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeWhzOjUiN3D5ygqQMc7SYpQ8bUAu679kf8jm1vPLbiTyNozJlCw

 

         Barry                 Everyone                   Me,

                                                            as of now

post #928 of 1137

MV5BMjE4Njk3MTEwMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDMzMDI2._V1._SX420_SY300_.jpg

post #929 of 1137

Consistency is one thing. But it is consistently having views that are inhuman, is what is at issue.

 

Barry completely missed the point by accusing RD of saying that Ron Paul is Hitler.

Being consistent does not equal Hitler. RD was merely saying that Hitler had shit views.

 

In reference to Jim Crow: "It was not a free market because of Jim Crow laws."

We-tod-ed. Imagine if there were no Jim Crow laws ( which enforced segregation), but no laws banning discrimination either. Then you would still have racist eateries. And again loss of potential customers would not have been on anybody's mind.  Do not leave it up to the states, especially where there exist states were prejudice is ingrained into the society.

 

Enough with this, "let the market decide" nonsense. The market is in fact part of a society, always has been AND ALWAYS WILL BE, and a society includes its people as well as its government, and a market cannot help but interact with other segments of a society. This is called reality. The idea that we are driven by rational economics self-interest is "non-sense." It is a western-originated cultural belief that is now spreading because of globalization. Human beings are not rational. They cannot be, the part of the brain that is older and more emotional does not communicate well with the newer, logical part of the brain. Libertarians must understand this. But they don't, instead acting like children, crying about "Government" while masturbating to the words "free market."

 

Everyone in this thread who opposes Barry's shit, arm yoursleves with "The Great Transformation" by Polanyi. This man is salt to the austrian slug.

 

Karl Polanyi FTW.

 

That is what is at issue.

 

P.S. Quadruple Motherfuck Ayn Rand

post #930 of 1137

In Barry's version of history, the Civil Rights Movement was promulgated by business owners who were tired of government restrictions impeding their profits.  And that the Jim Crow laws that did so were the work of the federal government, and not an exercise of states rights.

post #931 of 1137

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

We're talking about a guy who's not only defending but actively supporting a candidate who honestly believes there's such a thing as "honest rape."  Sorry, but that shit needs to be met, not just shrugged off as, "Well, different strokes."

 

Replace Barry with me and replace Paul's horrific phrasing with Obama staining H.R. 1540 with his signature and you have a pretty good idea of a very non-theoretical situation I've found myself in in the past.  I'm empathetic with the outnumbered Barry in the same sense that I empathize with anyone who's ever had to justify their "active support" (as if that's not an extremely charitable way to describe an honest, thinking person's relationship with most/all politicians they've ever cast a vote for) for a candidate when none exist that don't come attached with an odious catch or twelve. 

 

Don't know about you guys, but I've never had the sensation of pulling the lever for anyone with particular pleasure.  Politics fucking sucks, and for me reaching decisions at the voting booth, even when I feel like I've made the right one, has always gone hand and hand with supreme disillusionment and bitter, reluctant compromise.  At some point we decide what issues we hold to be the most important and do what we can to defend those decisions to our own, hopefully active conscience.  As everyone likes to point out, these things tend to be about choosing the lesser of two evils.  If Barry arrives at Ron Paul as his answer when he gets x by itself, who the hell am I to call him "a bad person" or accuse him of having a casual attitude toward rape?  These accusations are nasty and bad form, at least in the way I've seen them materialize in this thread.

 

I dunno, maybe it's just me.  I can be pretty thin-skinned when it comes to stuff like this and I suppose it's why I generally observe rather participate in political discussions even when people I agree with are the dominate party. 

post #932 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

 

 

Replace Barry with me and replace Paul's horrific phrasing with Obama staining H.R. 1540 with his signature and you have a pretty good idea of a very non-theoretical situation I've found myself in in the past.  I'm empathetic with the outnumbered Barry in the same sense that I empathize with anyone who's ever had to justify their "active support" (as if that's not an extremely charitable way to describe an honest, thinking person's relationship with most/all politicians they've ever cast a vote for) for a candidate when none exist that don't come attached with an odious catch or twelve. 

 

Don't know about you guys, but I've never had the sensation of pulling the lever for anyone with particular pleasure.  Politics fucking sucks, and for me reaching decisions at the voting booth, even when I feel like I've made the right one, has always gone hand and hand with supreme disillusionment and bitter, reluctant compromise.  At some point we decide what issues we hold to be the most important and do what we can to defend those decisions to our own, hopefully active conscience.  As everyone likes to point out, these things tend to be about choosing the lesser of two evils.  If Barry arrives at Ron Paul as his answer when he gets x by itself, who the hell am I to call him "a bad person" or accuse him of having a casual attitude toward rape?  These accusations are nasty and bad form, at least in the way I've seen them materialize in this thread.

 

I dunno, maybe it's just me.  I can be pretty thin-skinned when it comes to stuff like this and I suppose it's why I generally observe rather participate in political discussions even when people I agree with are the dominate party. 


I think most of the participants have at some point in its storied history empathized with Barry for being outnumbered, or impressed with his civility in the face of it, but then we all eventually come around to being annoyed that he keeps coming back to post again and again without actually saying anything.  No matter how many direct questions he gets about this issue or that, he responds with a single sentence non-answer that may or may not tangentially address one part of the question.  The good thing about Ron Paul is that substance aside*, he says what he means and stands by what he says**.  He is, ironically, supporting Ron Paul's politics with Mitt Romney's rhetorical tactics. 

 

I say this with no particular ill will toward Barry, but I can't help but imagine that the Ron Paul who has no problem standing in front of a GOP crowd and saying into a microphone that he wouldn't do a damn thing to Iran would look at this thread and think that while Barry has his heart in the right places, he's being a total pussy about it.

 

*and yes, substance is always going to trump presentation after a certain point

**unless its in print under his name and blatantly racist, in which case there's some squirming

post #933 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

 

 

Replace Barry with me and replace Paul's horrific phrasing with Obama staining H.R. 1540 with his signature and you have a pretty good idea of a very non-theoretical situation I've found myself in in the past.  I'm empathetic with the outnumbered Barry in the same sense that I empathize with anyone who's ever had to justify their "active support" (as if that's not an extremely charitable way to describe an honest, thinking person's relationship with most/all politicians they've ever cast a vote for) for a candidate when none exist that don't come attached with an odious catch or twelve. 



There is a basic fallacy in this statement. Obama signed one law that has an odious provision in it (not inserted by him but by his political enemies) because it maintained essential budgets and operations for the Defense Department as a whole. In his Statement about the law Obama even said "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists". It is one specific instance of a President being forced to compromise.

 

The President's full statement is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

 

Contrast this with Ron Paul's practice, over the course of 10 years (at least), of publishing overtly racist and disgusting remarks about minorities, Black people in particular, in a newsletter published under his own name. He derived a significant amount of income pandering to people who feel comfortable describing Black people as "animals" and predicting massive Race riots in major cities in the 90's. And he now disavows knowing about these statements, saying someone else wrote them, even though there is documented proof that Ron Paul has traded emails with White Supremacist groups, and not to take them to task for their racial beliefs. Oh, and if in fact he was ignorant of the racist content of his newsletter, then he essentially defrauded everyone who paid for a subscription to a newsletter that they believed represented Ron Paul's beliefs and insights.

 

On the first case, you have a politician who bowed to pressure from the opposing party. In the second, you are dealing with a fundamental character trait.


It's not an accurate or fair comparison.

post #934 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

There is a basic fallacy in this statement. Obama signed one law that has an odious provision in it (not inserted by him but by his political enemies) because it maintained essential budgets and operations for the Defense Department as a whole. In his Statement about the law Obama even said "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists". It is one specific instance of a President being forced to compromise.

 

The President's full statement is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

 

I'm well aware of all of this.  What I wasn't aware of was that Obama's reservations are supposed to make me feel better about the ramifications of the bill that he signed into law.  I'm not overly fearful of what Obama's administration will do with this bill in effect, but the bill's effect goes beyond his administration's term, doesn't it?  That's scary to me.  That the president was effectively set up by his political enemies is about as comforting to me as Paul's alleged cluelessness about ugly writings bearing his name.  Obama published that law; Paul published those newsletters.  I'm not seeing what's so manifestly apples and oranges about it.  

 

Now, you raise a valid point about there being more to both of these stories than a few words can necessarily encompass accurately (sometimes by design), but I'm not sure you're applying the principle with parity.  If Paul is guilty of defrauding subscribers of his newsletters - admittedly the best case scenario for him - how the hell am I supposed to consider that less palatable than Obama's complicity in NDAA 2012?  Not a fun pair of options for me to choose between.

post #935 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:38pm
post #936 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

 

I'm well aware of all of this.  What I wasn't aware of was that Obama's reservations are supposed to make me feel better about the ramifications of the bill that he signed into law.  I'm not overly fearful of what Obama's administration will do with this bill in effect, but the bill's effect goes beyond his administration's term, doesn't it?  That's scary to me.  That the president was effectively set up by his political enemies is about as comforting to me as Paul's alleged cluelessness about ugly writings bearing his name.  Obama published that law; Paul published those newsletters.  I'm not seeing what's so manifestly apples and oranges about it.  

 

Now, you raise a valid point about there being more to both of these stories than a few words can necessarily encompass accurately (sometimes by design), but I'm not sure you're applying the principle with parity.  If Paul is guilty of defrauding subscribers of his newsletters - admittedly the best case scenario for him - how the hell am I supposed to consider that less palatable than Obama's complicity in NDAA 2012?  Not a fun pair of options for me to choose between.

The point is you point to Obama compromising on ONE bill (albeit one an important issue) where as Ron Paul shows a clear and ugly pattern of awful beliefs over a long period of time. I'd add that many of Ron Paul's Libertarian ideals looks great until you consider their effect on minorities (examples include his attitude to Property Rights trumping Civil Rights, Federal Regulations requiring ramps for the handicapped mentioned above etc).
 

 

post #937 of 1137

Also, Laws can be amended, changed, and neutered by how they are implemented.

post #938 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:38pm
post #939 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

 

It wasn't any average run-of-the-mill compromise, it was our civil rights. Whether he ever takes advantage of the provision or not, you can be sure future administrations will.

 

Also, Senator Carl Levin said the Obama administration asked lawmakers to remove language from the NDAA that would have protected American citizens from indefinite detention:

 

 

His newsletters were published for nearly 14 years without any bigoted remarks. The offending remarks were published sporadically over a period of five years when he claims to have stepped away from the business.

 

A two-part report on the newsletters:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwKixWPz4Q

 

 

I'd like to see that proof, because if you're referring to the Anonymous email dump, I don't think there is any.


Wait, so someone hacks Pauls' emails and you reject that as proof? What, did they make them up?

 

Here's an interview with Paul from 1995. He sure seems involved in writing those newsletters....

 

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/video-surfaces-of-ron-paul-discussing-newsletters-in

 

post #940 of 1137

Here's an interesting article with some links that show Paul has a long history with White Power Groups

 

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

 

Barry, if you've done all the research you claim you have, you know there is a long history of people with certain constellations of beliefs paling around. For whatever reason, many people who strongly feel Gold should be a legit currency also have strong distrust of Government, and that distrust many times includes a belief that minorities have hijacked the system in order to profit themselves, because they lack the ability to thrive in a Free Market Society. So you really shouldn't be surprised at the people who support Ron Paul.

post #941 of 1137


    Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

The point is you point to Obama compromising on ONE bill (albeit one an important issue) where as Ron Paul shows a clear and ugly pattern of awful beliefs over a long period of time.


And what if that ONE bill bothers me, like, a lot?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I'd add that many of Ron Paul's Libertarian ideals looks great until you consider their effect on minorities (examples include his attitude to Property Rights trumping Civil Rights, Federal Regulations requiring ramps for the handicapped mentioned above etc).

 


This is desultory.  Whether I think Paul's libertarian ideals look great or look crummy, my obligation is ultimately to consider what he would actually do given the hypothetical of him as president and compare that to what I think the other guy would do.  I don't see the bill in question getting Paul's approval.  I don't think anyone does given his track record.  This is something - one thing - I'd have to weigh.

post #942 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post


    Quote:


And what if that ONE bill bothers me, like, a lot?

 


This is desultory.  Whether I think Paul's libertarian ideals look great or look crummy, my obligation is ultimately to consider what he would actually do given the hypothetical of him as president and compare that to what I think the other guy would do.  I don't see the bill in question getting Paul's approval.  I don't think anyone does given his track record.  This is something - one thing - I'd have to weigh.



It is NOT desultory. Ron Paul has beliefs that have known consequences for minorities. And he also sold newsletters to, corresponded with, and has campaigning for him, known Racists and White Supremacists. This is not a case of a couple of nuts attaching themselves to a candidate: they are part of his organization!

 

You still miss the point that there is a difference between a politician failing in one instance vs. someone with fundamental beliefs that are odious. And saying "Well he wouldn't actually get to DO anything" is a weird argument to make. If a Politician can't get anything done, why vote for him/her?

post #943 of 1137
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 4/9/14 at 8:38pm
post #944 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

 

They didn't hack Paul's emails, they hacked the emails of a hate group. There's nothing within the emails to suggest Paul knew who these people were or what they stood for.

 

 

Just because they support him doesn't mean he supports them.



A fair point.

 

Oh wait...

post #945 of 1137

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

It is NOT desultory. Ron Paul has beliefs that have known consequences for minorities.

 

Arguably, so do some of Obama's policies, which, by the way, have tangible impact on the country where Paul's "beliefs" do not.  I'm not saying that I buy that a Paul presidency would be better on minorities than Obama's, even though I'm sure he'd try to claim that his drug legalization stance somehow makes such a conclusion self-evident.  I am saying that if you're looking for an administration that won't have "consequences" for minorities, you're in the wrong reality.  Or do you have a more specific argument to make?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

And he also sold newsletters to, corresponded with, and has campaigning for him, known Racists and White Supremacists. This is not a case of a couple of nuts attaching themselves to a candidate: they are part of his organization!

 

There are irredeemable scumbags campaigning for Ron Paul?  No fucking shit.  What would you have me do about it?  And that Anonymous piece carries the exact same desperation of those idiotic hit pieces on Obama back when he was on the trail that acted like his sharing a podium with members of the New Black Panthers was the lid on his secret anti-semitism being blown wide open.  Give me dirt on awful things these guys actually did, not a choice album of people they posed for pictures with at various points.  Maybe that just betrays how far I've fallen from my idealism, but there it is.

 

Yes, Paul's philosophies hold a particular appeal to a really odious segment of people.  That's the observation - what's the conclusion?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
You still miss the point that there is a difference between a politician failing in one instance vs. someone with fundamental beliefs that are odious. And saying "Well he wouldn't actually get to DO anything" is a weird argument to make. If a Politician can't get anything done, why vote for him/her?

That's not what I said.  To play along though, if I was to name a positive for a politician who can't get anything done, the cynic in me would probably say: what they aren't able to get done.


Edited by FatherDude - 2/10/12 at 6:27pm
post #946 of 1137


Some good points made, FatherDude, and I've generally agreed in the past that you have to separate the politicians as people from what they're likely to accomplish, to WANT to accomplish, and to be ABLE to accomplish. And you're right: I can see the appeal of voting for a crazy scumbag like Paul because he's taken a firm stance on the right side of the civil liberties issue and the various wars, whereas the generally less scummy Obama has not. (And if Barry would just come out and say this instead of tripping lightly over the many, many issues with Paul, I might be able to take him seriously.)

 

Nevertheless, there are some issues here, and they boil down to intent, which is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. There's no denying that Obama's personal feelings on HR 1540 are a weenie caveat compared to the fact that he actually signed the bill. But it's pretty clear that Obama didn't actually like it, which means he's likely going to work towards undermining that provision over the remainder of his term. Weak sauce, to be sure, but here's the crucial thing: would President Ron Paul have been able to act differently?

 

To back up for a moment, this:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

 

Arguably, so do some of Obama's policies, which, by the way, have tangible impact on the country where Paul's "beliefs" do not. 


...is a bit weaselly, because Obama is president; Paul is not. If Paul were president, then it seems undeniable that, yes, his "beliefs" absolutely WOULD have a tangible impact on the country, because that's where his policies would derive from.

 

For instance: Obama just used a bit of legislative jujitsu to get around complaints from religious groups about health care provisions for contraceptive care. The end result: women have their preventative care paid for, and religious employers don't have to pay for it. Everybody wins, except for the people who were against it because they don't want women to have control of their bodies and were using this as an excuse.

 

President Ron Paul would not have done this. Paul is not just pro-life, he's against government-sponsored health care, so it seems unlikely he would have done everything possible to give the religious bigots what they want, probably in the form of sabotaging the program as much as possible. End result? The guy devoted to "personal liberties" would undercut the personal liberties of women everywhere.

 

And this is the kind of thing that would happen over and over and over again, for every piece of legislation or executive action. The guy's intent would make an impact on the agenda of the country for the next 4-8 years, and the agenda would be "strip away government support". It doesn't matter that there would be people in the government standing against him; he would be the president, and he'd have an awful lot of options open to him in terms of getting his agenda executed. We can't point to specific examples in every case, but we know the guy's intent.

 

On the flip side, all the good stuff we'd like Paul to accomplish in terms of the military and security forces is the kind of stuff that requires massive co-operation--and we're talking about organizations (the military, the department of homeland security, the CIA) with an awful lot of power and money, who probably are not going to nod their heads agreeably if the president were to try and take even a bit of it away from them. Which brings us back to HR 1540--what would President Paul have done? Best case scenario, he would have refused to sign. Then what? The possible fallout from that decision in the halls of power is...unnerving to consider.

 

On top of all that: Ron Paul is a Republican. Even a maverick (a word Paul has actually earned) in that party is going to be suspect after the last few decades. The Republicans have a way of forcing their people to walk in lockstep.

 

Despite all this, I'm not going to hold it against you if the moral calculus seems to support Paul over Obama. There's no denying that you have to boil it down to pragmatism at some point, not personality. But I'd argue pragmatism still supports Obama, a flawed and compromised leader who actually knows how to lead, versus a theoretical shining hope vs. Paul, who, like most of the GOP, doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality.

post #947 of 1137

If your vote comes down to pragmatism, then presumably you vote for the pragmatist, not the ideologue.

post #948 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

Despite all this, I'm not going to hold it against you if the moral calculus seems to support Paul over Obama.

 

In all probability, my moral calculus is going to end up supporting Obama simply because the choice between Obama and Romney/Gingrich/Santorum is, for me, not a choice at all.  I'm not afraid to "throw my vote away" for a principle, but the principle of keeping incredibly scary(er) people out of the White House is going to outweigh any other.  I just consider that to be a very, very, very disillusioning situation to find myself in as a voter even if it's nothing new.  I definitely regret that, given that they're the best contestants this side show can evidently offer us, we're not going to get to see debates between the president and Paul.  I guess the best I can hope for is that whatever performance Paul can pull off continues to fracture the GOP.

post #949 of 1137

Swallowing your disillusionment is one thing. Refusing to honestly debate the moral and ethical problems of your chosen candidate's position is quite another.

post #950 of 1137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

 

Arguably, so do some of Obama's policies, which, by the way, have tangible impact on the country where Paul's "beliefs" do not.  I'm not saying that I buy that a Paul presidency would be better on minorities than Obama's, even though I'm sure he'd try to claim that his drug legalization stance somehow makes such a conclusion self-evident.  I am saying that if you're looking for an administration that won't have "consequences" for minorities, you're in the wrong reality.  Or do you have a more specific argument to make?

 

 

There are irredeemable scumbags campaigning for Ron Paul?  No fucking shit.  What would you have me do about it?  And that Anonymous piece carries the exact same desperation of those idiotic hit pieces on Obama back when he was on the trail that acted like his sharing a podium with members of the New Black Panthers was the lid on his secret anti-semitism being blown wide open.  Give me dirt on awful things these guys actually did, not a choice album of people they posed for pictures with at various points.  Maybe that just betrays how far I've fallen from my idealism, but there it is.

 

Yes, Paul's philosophies hold a particular appeal to a really odious segment of people.  That's the observation - what's the conclusion?

That's not what I said.  To play along though, if I was to name a positive for a politician who can't get anything done, the cynic in me would probably say: what they aren't able to get done.


Specifically I'm arguing that were Ron Paul to get elected and enact his Libertarian beliefs, minorities would suffer. They would see their Civil Liberties eroded (irony there!) and a rise in discrimination. The quotes from Ron Paul's Newsletters shows that he at the very least sympathetic to outright racist views.

 

FatherDude "No fucking shit.  What would you have me do about it?" er, nothing, "Dude", I think it's a reason to view Ron Paul with suspicion.

 

The problem with those links is, Ron Paul doesn't disavow them. In the URL I posted above, a known White Supremacist donated $500 to Ron Paul's campaign. The standard operating procedure for this situation is, the Politician returns the money and publicly repudiates the donor. Don't see that Ron Paul ever did that. If he did, that is a strong point in his favor. If he didn't, that's a tacit agreement with that donor. Or he really really needed that $500. This is Politics 101.

 

The conclusion I draw from these observations is, Ron Paul's business (both as politician and newsletter not-writer) is designed to attract a certain credulous group of people who are rightly marginalized in US society. They can't come out and say what they really feel, so they use code words like "Property Rights" and "Big Government". Really this is not new. Look at the Busing controversies in the 1960's and 1970's.

 

Then you have people like Barry, and a lot of RP's younger supporters, who've latched on to specific things RP says, and simply ignore the rest. And I'd wager that they ignore "the rest" because they don't think they'd ever suffer the consequences of an America set back to the 1800's in Civil Rights.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse