School Me on Ron Paul
Options
Comments
-
didn't he used to run and write articles for some white supremacist newsletter?
Here we go: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
Why don't you let Ron Paul school you on Ron Paul:opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,
This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s -
Wow you are so defensive.
Heh defensive? Well, I think that you're so sensitive. I don't equate being thorough and considerate for self amusement with being overly defensive. But that's neither here nor there.Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology.
Ok, I don't see how that makes much sense. You're the one who intiated all of this by commenting on what I had to say about Ron Paul and even still, now you say you don't agree with his ideology in my thread about my agreement with his ideology. Doesnt make sense to me. Well, all I did was give a response to you as I have tried to do with almost everyone who has responded to my thread. I'm not interested in internet beef if that's the direction you're heading.And by jumping through hoops it means going to great lengths to defend your ideology.
I thought so. I don't know about calling it "great lengths", but I guess I'll take that as a compliment imo? So uh, thanks? -
Heh defensive? Well, I think that you're so sensitive. I don't equate being thorough and considerate for self amusement with being overly defensive. But that's neither here nor there.
Nope quite the opposite.. im chillin.. but you took time out to respond to a simple comment (that wasnt any more than a comment on your actions, not your ideology or Paul)Ok, I don't see how that makes much sense. You're the one who intiated all of this by commenting on what I had to say about Ron Paul and even still, now you say you don't agree with his ideology in my thread about my agreement with his ideology. Doesnt make sense to me. Well, all I did was give a response to you as I have tried to do with almost everyone who has responded to my thread. I'm not interested in internet beef if that's the direction you're heading.
Actually what I said was you were "jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul" (guess that equates attacking?) , you then responded by stating "if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how." which my response was "Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology." (even though I do like to learn what the other side thinks)..
Im flattered you took time to respond to my post.. But you should respond to Binstar's... he's actually bringing up points & facts that warrant your attention (rather than responding to off hand comments). I honestly didn't expect you to respond since, you know, i really didnt contribute to the thread [and nope no "internet beef" on my end bro]I thought so. I don't know about calling it "great lengths", but I guess I'll take that as a compliment imo? So uh, thanks?
As a matter of fact, idk why i said it was "great lengths".. nvm that. More like you're going hard in the paint for him, but hey, he's your guy (or seems to be..which is cool) ..
So good day sir -
you don't under stand. If Ron paul has his way the state institutions would diminish.Perhaps I misunderstood you. I just thought that when you said "he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store", you were trying to discredit Paul by implying that he compares blacks to objects or that he devalues black people or people in general. And I thought that that was shady.
I disagree? I don't quite understand what you are saying though. Could you perhaps explain Paul's alleged oversimplification of civil rights? Because I personally think that he has an excellent understanding of "American" civil rights in general, a better understanding than most people I've known and most politicians I've seen on TV actually. He is pretty much a libertarian after all. I mean, how much more of an advocate of civil rights do you have to be?
That's interesting. I think that if you take a look at the world today, you'd see that very ideal taking over every facet of American life today. Let's face it, it's all about money and nothing more. I don't see how you think that Ron Paul's ideology is going to possibly make things worse. I actually think that it will make things better for reasons I have already stated. But yes, I agree with you, the commodification of life in general is sickening.
I also find it interesting that you still somehow see Ron Paul's ideology as a hindrance to individual rights. I see this exact opposite. How is advocating for the ability of an individual to exert his right to run his private business the way he wants to a hindrance to individual rights? Yes, the way he might want to run his business may prevent others from partaking but all that stems from his original right. In the same way, a man who owns a house may want to throw a house party. Does that mean that he has to invite everybody? No. Because he privately owns that house. Remember, this still does not change the rules as they apply to public businesses which is open to all peoples simply because they are public. Public means open to all. Private can mean something very contrary to the meaning of public.
Yes, I agree!. And I think that Paul agrees also. What you have said pertains to public institutions, not private ones. Paul is not against the civil rights act per se. I personally think that he is for the civil rights act more than the civil rights act is for the civil rights act. He wants to amend it so that it will be more faithful to America and cvil rights in general. And that only includes raising a point of contention about a small porting of the acts. He is fine with mostly all that the acts have to say.
Let me try to better drive my point about private ownership. Brigham Young University suspended one of it's basketball stars because he had pre-marital sex. Now that might seem silly to us all, but that might also seem wrong to us all just as it would seem wrong for a private business to refuse service to Hispanic peoples. So why is what BYU did acceptable (I'm not saying that it's morally right) in America? Because BYU is privately owned and privately owned by a religious group that frowns upon pre-marital sex. A state school such as Utah State University would not and could not technically do what BYU did because it is a public school. Bottom line, you should be able to dictate how you want to run what you privately own as long as it is not against the law.
So, there could potentially be a bunch of legally racist businesses taking over the services of things that once were offered by the Government... -
i heard alot of okay stuff about him over the last couple elections. . .when i seen him standing next to the person who runs kkk. . .
kinda destroyed the ok image i had of him -
Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.
So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?
I can give you my perspective it will better help you.
I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"
So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and ? , it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.
Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. ? just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.
On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.
On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.
He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.
Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.
Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that ? Bachmann.
One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.
If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM. -
Nope quite the opposite.. im chillin..
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree about that then?but you took time out to respond to a simple comment
Bruh I gladly take out time to respond to anything. That doesn’t mean that I’m mad or defensive or not chillin. You don’t know me but I am the definition of chillin. I feel that getting worked up about anything in life is more than likely a waste of time. It doesn’t matter that it’s a simple comment. It’s nothing to me. It may seem something to you, but I just like to be thorough and spur on discussion.(that wasnt any more than a comment on your actions, not your ideology or Paul)
I really think that this isn’t worth arguing about and I don’t want to derail this thread even though I have enjoyed this little argument of ours. I’ll just hold my peace and respect your opinion even though I still disagree.Actually what I said was you were "jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul" (guess that equates attacking?) , you then responded by stating "if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how." which my response was "Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology." (even though I do like to learn what the other side thinks)..
I think that I misunderstood you (or rather I misunderstood that “idc what you have to say about Ron Paul” line) because I don’t know what you were specifically replying to. But now I understand you. My bad.Im flattered you took time to respond to my post..
Thanks? I appreciate your cordiality, but it’s a 90% given chance that I’ll respond to a post that is directed to me or one that I find interesting for whatever reason. I don’t like leaving people hanging or ignoring people that shouldn’t be ignored.But you should respond to Binstar's... he's actually bringing up points & facts that warrant your attention (rather than responding to off hand comments).
Like I said, I respond or try to respond to all posts directed to me, even if they are off hand. And I think that most of my responses in this thread have been directed at many posters who have brought up many points and facts. What we have here actually may be the only “off hand” response that I have initiated in this thread so far, so it’s not like I’m just messing around. I have replied to many posters who have posted recently. But it’s been a couple of days since, so I am waiting on them if they choose to reply back or not. So it’s just a waiting game for now.
But I will check out Binstar’s post if you recommend it to me. I’m not sure how I missed his post if it’s relevant like you say it is.I honestly didn't expect you to respond since, you know, i really didnt contribute to the thread
Well, that was the point of my non-defensive yet self-amusing introduction of myself to you. I’m different like that or maybe I'm just a big nerd. Now you know. And I wouldn’t say that you didn’t contribute to the thread. I don’t see it that way. It may not have been highly relevant or directly on topic but it’s still a noteworthy contribution imo.[and nope no "internet beef" on my end bro]
Cool.As a matter of fact, idk why i said it was "great lengths".. nvm that. More like you're going hard in the paint for him, but hey, he's your guy (or seems to be..which is cool) ..
Yes, I guess I am going hard in the paint heh. I’m not sure if he’s my guy. I’m just impressed by him as a politician. I’m sure he has problems and controversies but I still admire him and agree with much of his ideology I think.So good day sir
Good day to you too. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.
So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?
I can give you my perspective it will better help you.
I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"
So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and ? , it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.
Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. ? just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.
On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.
On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.
He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.
Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.
Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that ? Bachmann.
One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.
If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM.
Trill post b -
didn't he used to run and write articles for some white supremacist newsletter?
Here we go: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
Why don't you let Ron Paul school you on Ron Paul:
Very interesting drop (even though it seems like your [not at all talking about you specifically btw] common race card tactic), but I want to caution us all with two issues before we jump the gun:
1. Is that source credible? Imo, regardless, the source seems obviously slanted. Even if those documets were true, where is the evidence (I may have missed that) that explicitly shows that Ron Paul wrote or condoned that. I could easily go to another source that says the opposite concerning this issue. In fact, on that same page, there are posters who have said a coupel of things that disprove this whole Ron Pau controversy. For instance, one has said that this may merely be a propaganda/smear campaign against Paul especially considering that this all came out allegedly during election time. Now are these posters reliable sources? I'm not sure, but i'll try to do more research to find a less biased and more neutral truth on the matter before I can truly react to this.
2. Well, I either forgot this point or already made it.
It all boils down to the fact that Ron Paul, as is ever the case, has some explaining to do. If he is an honorable man, he’ll tell the truth whether it’s good or bad. I assume that he might avoid this question because the press and his opposition can twist his words up and eat him alive however which way he responds, especially in this race-sensitive society. Who knows? We can even assume that everything is true but who’s to say that he was racist and now has changed like George Wallace had. Is that possible? What he advocates today seems pretty incompatible with the kind of racism we are talking about. Doesn’t make sense logically imo. -
you don't under stand. If Ron paul has his way the state institutions would diminish.
Please explain.
And what do you have to say about my last response?So, there could potentially be a bunch of legally racist businesses taking over the services of things that once were offered by the Government...
"Potentially" is a keyword there for me. I think that likelihood could be low. And who's to say that our government isn't racist itself? Whether it's state or federal may be irrelevant. And why the strong focus on race and racism? Where's the outcry that our businesses might be sexist or ageist? This is why I think that the race card is being pulled here just for dramatic purposes. Not necessarily for genuine purposes. -
eddie2time wrote: »i heard alot of okay stuff about him over the last couple elections. . .when i seen him standing next to the person who runs kkk. . .
kinda destroyed the ok image i had of him
Could you say more about that? -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Trill post b
indeed. but I assumed (from your previous posts?) that you didn't like Paul. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.
So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?
I can give you my perspective it will better help you.
I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"
So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and ? , it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.
Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. ? just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.
On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.
On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.
He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.
Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.
Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that ? Bachmann.
One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.
If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM.
Great drop! I pretty much have the same opinion as much as my knowledge allows me. That is exactly why I respect the man.
As for Paul being electable? I still believe that he is not. Why? Because the media doesnt like him. And you need the media to tell the public to vote for you and to get your name out. And it also seems that neither of the two major parties like him, even his own party, especially since it seems that he holds political views from both parties. I also think that his ideology empowers people, and the government might not want that. His ideology is also very different and people aren't exactly cozy with the idea of change despite their cries for change. I think that Paul's situation is very different from Obama's, and Obama had that charisma and propaganda thing going for him. There were other reasons why I thought that he wasn't electable, but they've escaped me somehow, meh.
But yeah, I have a few simple questions, I'll pm you. -
Very interesting drop (even though it seems like your [not at all talking about you specifically btw] common race card tactic), but I want to caution us all with two issues before we jump the gun:
1. Is that source credible? Imo, regardless, the source seems obviously slanted. Even if those documets were true, where is the evidence (I may have missed that) that explicitly shows that Ron Paul wrote or condoned that. I could easily go to another source that says the opposite concerning this issue. In fact, on that same page, there are posters who have said a coupel of things that disprove this whole Ron Pau controversy. For instance, one has said that this may merely be a propaganda/smear campaign against Paul especially considering that this all came out allegedly during election time. Now are these posters reliable sources? I'm not sure, but i'll try to do more research to find a less biased and more neutral truth on the matter before I can truly react to this.
2. Well, I either forgot this point or already made it.
It all boils down to the fact that Ron Paul, as is ever the case, has some explaining to do. If he is an honorable man, he’ll tell the truth whether it’s good or bad. I assume that he might avoid this question because the press and his opposition can twist his words up and eat him alive however which way he responds, especially in this race-sensitive society. Who knows? We can even assume that everything is true but who’s to say that he was racist and now has changed like George Wallace had. Is that possible? What he advocates today seems pretty incompatible with the kind of racism we are talking about. Doesn’t make sense logically imo.
dude... the newsletter was called "The Ron Paul Freedom Report" and he claims that the articles in question (there were images of them in my first link so I'm not sure where the question of authenticity comes from) was written by someone else although he can't remember who wrote them.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS
Also I''ll leave you with one more link:
when asked about this ? he spouts off some random ? about eliminating drug laws to confuse the average pothead ? . those of us who stay sober aren't so impressed and can see the irony in his statements.
ps - wtf do you mean "common race card tactic"? you asked about ron paul and i pointed out that he spent 20 years publishing an often overtly racist newsletter (with references, i might add) yet somehow I'm the one using "common racecard tactics"?
you need to practice the common eat a ? tactic you half-educated nimrod. how you gonna start a thread with "school me on... X" and then all of a sudden you feel like you're the authority on X? -
dude... the newsletter was called "The Ron Paul Freedom Report"
Oh? I didn't see/know that. I checked your link again but I still couldn't find that bit of information there. Edit: Ok I think that I found what you're talking about at the end of the article. Yes, it's more than likely that Ron Paul had much to do directly with those newsletter writings.and he claims that the articles in question (there were images of them in my first link so I'm not sure where the question of authenticity comes from) was written by someone else although he can't remember who wrote them.
It was the image excerpts throughout the article that found potentially questionable. But now I see the other images, so it's cool. And I wasn't saying that what you were saying was false. I just like to see hard evidence for something before I can believe it.
Ok, I think that I misunderstood for some reason?? I thought that you or the article was saying that Paul wrote these newsletters? I may be missing something here, but I still see no direct evidence to confirm this? Is it fair for me to still say that the authorship (and approval?) of the newsletters (not necessarily the authenticity of the documents themselves) is in question?
Good drops. I'm guessing that you're giving me more sources to read up on the matter? I will definitely read up on them, thanks. Sorry, I cant now because I'm too busy. Though I already skimmed a little.Also I''ll leave you with one more link:
when asked about this ? he spouts off some random ? about eliminating drug laws to confuse the average pothead ? . those of us who stay sober aren't so impressed and can see the irony in his statements.
Wow, that's odd. Because I have a very different (and imo, less biased?) reaction towards the video. I thought that he responded to the issue (the question wasn't very specific to be honest) very reasonably, sufficiently, and admirably. I think that it's hyperbolic to say that he avoided it and talked about something random. After responding to the issue, he did talk about another issue, but that issue was very related to the original issue. In addition, he made it very obvious that he was making the transition to talk about another different yet related issue in the interview in order to not play the interviewer's game and in order to play his own game. I wish I could see more of the interview, perhaps we're missing the best parts?
Since we differ so greatly about this video and since I want to better understand where you are coming from, can you explain to me why you think he was beign disingenuous and how what he said was ironic. Because I don't see that at all.ps - wtf do you mean "common race card tactic"? you asked about ron paul and i pointed out that he spent 20 years publishing an often overtly racist newsletter (with references, i might add) yet somehow I'm the one using "common racecard tactics"?
Damn lol. I had reread that line of mine before you replied, and it seemed as if I was attacking you (which I was not!), so I edited it to include the "[not at all talking about you specifically btw]" line so that I could further clarify that I was not attacking you. So maybe you saw that before I edited my post? I'll repeat it again: I was not talking about you. I was rather talking about the media and whoever brought up this Ron Paul racist controversy in the first place (the idea that this was done for political purposes is being sorely overlooked imo).
Speaking of which, I do have one honest question that has been on my mind. Let's say that this controversy is true and that Ron Paul did write or approve of the newsletters. What would be the significance? That he is a racist? That he can't be trusted as a politician? What do you ultimately think that this will say about Ron Paul? I guess what I'm asking is: what is the essential purpose of informing me about this controversy. What about Ron Paul am I being schooled on here? Again, these are honest and not rhetorical questions, I do not know the answers to these questions. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to teach me about Ron Paul.
I'll say one last thing. Or perhaps ask you one last thing. Do you think that Ron Paul is racist? Did it seem that Paul was racist in that video? Because, for me, it clearly seems that he's not, regardless of what happened in the past, and he clearly articulated that exact sentiment.you need to practice the common eat a ? tactic you half-educated nimrod.
Wow, you seem mad lol. There's no need to resort to name calling, especially since you don't know me. But whatever lifts your luggage dude.
I didn't understand the "eat a ? " bit. Either it didnt make sense or it was exactly what I thought it was: a very lame and childish insult. As for me being half-educated? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. And as for the nimrod comment. I've learned that "nimrod" can mean "warrior" or "hunter" but I doubt that you're calling me that. So you must be calling me an idiot. But I hoenstly think that you could've just taken out "half educated" because a "half educated nimrod" is a bit redudant. You're kind of saying the same thing twice. Kind of like a double negative. If that's the case, then those two words would cancel each other and your insult would lose its effectiveness. Anyways, I'd just go with "nimrod". But who even uses that term anymore? I'd just go with "? " or "idiot" if I were you.how you gonna start a thread with "school me on... X" and then all of a sudden you feel like you're the authority on X?
What!? When did I feel like I was the authority on Ron Paul!? Please show me. If I gave you that impression, I guess that I'm sorry? But I certainly don't think that I'm the authority on Paul. I actually thought that my whole post was basically full of mere speculations and not of confirmations, so I don't see your point at all. -
Please explain.
And what do you have to say about my last response?
"Potentially" is a keyword there for me. I think that likelihood could be low. And who's to say that our government isn't racist itself? Whether it's state or federal may be irrelevant. And why the strong focus on race and racism? Where's the outcry that our businesses might be sexist or ageist? This is why I think that the race card is being pulled here just for dramatic purposes. Not necessarily for genuine purposes.
Cause racism is something almost everyone agrees is bad, to some level..
I think he'd mess up our environment, helthcare, and economy... Racism is just the tip of the ice berg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w