I am all for debating Paul's points.
But I don't dismiss him or call him crazy.
RE: Z's article on Progressives and Paul.
Ron Paul, on the surface, seems to support many of the same things Progressives support.
Occasionally for the same or similar reasons, often for very different reasons.
The one that people here often mention is Paul's opposition to foreign intervention.
Paul opposed the US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Granada... not because he opposes war, only because the Congress never declared war. He would invade Iran (as he recently told a crowd in Iowa) if the congress declared war on Iran. The same is true for Haiti.
Pretty much right down the line it is not that Paul believes the same things that progressive believe, it is that his policies would be similar to policies that progressive would like to see.
I think this is a bit wrong. He's stated before that Constitution called for staying out of foreign "entanglements" (I believe he called them) and that it's not for the president to call for going to war. I was under the impression he believes in keeping the US out of any foreign wars. Like the US had been doing (For the most part) up until WWII.
WWII , a war Ron said the US shouldn't have fought.
I'm just making a point that up until then, the US was pretty much isolationists. Does he really state he was against WWII involvement, or more so what followed and the complete reversal of isolationism?
Yes, Paul believes the President should stay out of foreign entanglements.
Yes, congress oked action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What Paul believes is that the US can/should get involved in foreign entanglements IF congress declares war.
He opposes Iraq/Afghanistan because congress did not declare war.
"Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990...."
And on and on. The point being is he is not against invading Haiti or any other place, he just wants Congress to declare war first.
And on and on. The point being is he is not against invading Haiti or any other place, he just wants Congress to declare war first.
So he's against the War Powers Act? He should just say so. Maybe he has. I agree that Paul's ideas should be discussed. However, after discussing them, the vast majority of his ideas should be rejected.
Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have made their statements attacking Blacks and the poor.
In George Wallace's first run for governor he was endorsed by the NAACP, his opponent was endorsed by the KKK.
Wallace lost. After the lost he said, "...I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."
It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.)
How's states rights working out so far regarding the war on drugs? Medical, decriminalization, mandatory minimums reduced... looks like the only place where progress is being made. You disagree?
As far as your other stuff, please stop calling names and making shit up. Paul certainly believes in helping the sick, the disagreement is over how best to pay for it. Talk about crazy...
It seems all the Paulbots think their taxes will disappear...the drug war will end (it may on the federal level, but remember it is "up to the states", so with the privitazation of prisons becoming a big revenue stream for states, I see local governments needing a steady stream of criminals, so maybe the dea going away, but your city's drug task force isn't going away.)
How's states rights working out so far regarding the war on drugs? Medical, decriminalization, mandatory minimums reduced... looks like the only place where progress is being made. You disagree?
As far as your other stuff, please stop calling names and making shit up. Paul certainly believes in helping the sick, the disagreement is over how best to pay for it. Talk about crazy...
Not making shit up....he has stated numerous times that charity will pick up the slack for the uninsured, then he tells anecdotes about how church charities took care of people when he was practicing. it is a pipedream that charities will be able to take care all of the poor.
I'm not following t his thread, but like I said in '08, if you even remotely give a shit about fundamental social issues - like kids being able to eat, get healthcare or have a chance at life - you cannot possibly be for Paul. I don't care if he is a racist, but he is STILL SAYING that he does not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He would argue that restaurants should have the right to not let Blacks in, and that those same businesses could call the police to enforce their racist agendas. He would also argue that employees should have no redress if they are sexually harassed or fired based on age, race, gender or national origin discrimination. In other words, he is a piece of shit.
If you are that much of an idiot that you need someone to spoon-feed you an explanation of how Paul's stated position on this issue is so ridiculous and offensive, read this excellent piece that was published in Salon today:
if you even remotely give a shit about fundamental social issues - like kids being able to eat, get healthcare or have a chance at life - you cannot possibly be for Paul.
Yeah homie, I don't care about kids being able to eat. And an article about how black people run fast is equal to sending the greatest army on earth on illegal murdering sprees.
Paul
Santorum
Bauchmann
Romney
Huntsman
Gingrich
Perry
Cain
That's a grim list.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
keithvanhorn said:
I'm not following t his thread, but like I said in '08, if you even remotely give a shit about fundamental social issues - like kids being able to eat, get healthcare or have a chance at life - you cannot possibly be for Paul. I don't care if he is a racist, but he is STILL SAYING that he does not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He would argue that restaurants should have the right to not let Blacks in, and that those same businesses could call the police to enforce their racist agendas. He would also argue that employees should have no redress if they are sexually harassed or fired based on age, race, gender or national origin discrimination. In other words, he is a piece of shit.
If you are that much of an idiot that you need someone to spoon-feed you an explanation of how Paul's stated position on this issue is so ridiculous and offensive, read this excellent piece that was published in Salon today:
Yes, go ahead and twist Paul's idea that it's not the function of the Federal government to enforce these things into him being a bigot who would still like to see whites and blacks living a segregated existence, especially when the most coherent sentence in that entire Salon article you posted was...
Perhaps I am misreading Paul.
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.
"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."
You Paul detractors are again dwelling in fantasyland where you sound the false alarm that a vote for Paul will bring us back to Jim Crow, all the while ignoring that Paul is about the only one speaking to the biggest issue of institutionalized racism today...that being the government literally bringing drugs into minority communities, then coming down all too harshly on those who partake through the racist powers of the court system.
End result being, you are once again missing the actual boat here.
I'm not following t his thread, but like I said in '08, if you even remotely give a shit about fundamental social issues - like kids being able to eat, get healthcare or have a chance at life - you cannot possibly be for Paul. I don't care if he is a racist, but he is STILL SAYING that he does not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He would argue that restaurants should have the right to not let Blacks in, and that those same businesses could call the police to enforce their racist agendas. He would also argue that employees should have no redress if they are sexually harassed or fired based on age, race, gender or national origin discrimination. In other words, he is a piece of shit.
If you are that much of an idiot that you need someone to spoon-feed you an explanation of how Paul's stated position on this issue is so ridiculous and offensive, read this excellent piece that was published in Salon today:
Yes, go ahead and twist Paul's idea that it's not the function of the Federal government to enforce these things into him being a bigot who would still like to see whites and blacks living a segregated existence, especially when the most coherent sentence in that entire Salon article you posted was...
Perhaps I am misreading Paul.
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.
"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."
You Paul detractors are again dwelling in fantasyland where you sound the false alarm that a vote for Paul will bring us back to Jim Crow, all the while ignoring that Paul is about the only one speaking to the biggest issue of institutionalized racism today...that being the government literally bringing drugs into minority communities, then coming down all too harshly on those who partake through the racist powers of the court system.
End result being, you are once again missing the actual boat here.
There is a very big difference between opposing Jim Crow laws (which forced segregation) and being in favor of the Civil Rights Act, which did much more good than just outlaw forced segregation. According to Paul, a private business owner should have the right to say that he is not going to hire Blacks or even serve them food in his restaurant. The same owner could sexually harass his employee with no civil recourse or fire an employee after he found out the employee was not a Christian.
If you actually read that article and still do not understand this, you are either brainwashed or incapable of reading and comprehending.
And our current president claims the right to assassinate anyone. Don't ask why, it's his secret and he's not telling. You can't win an argument about "rights" with that kind of blood in your corner. All of these clowns except one claim the right to murder at will and to commit the supreme international crime. The choice isn't complicated.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
keithvanhorn said:
HarveyCanal said:
keithvanhorn said:
I'm not following t his thread, but like I said in '08, if you even remotely give a shit about fundamental social issues - like kids being able to eat, get healthcare or have a chance at life - you cannot possibly be for Paul. I don't care if he is a racist, but he is STILL SAYING that he does not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He would argue that restaurants should have the right to not let Blacks in, and that those same businesses could call the police to enforce their racist agendas. He would also argue that employees should have no redress if they are sexually harassed or fired based on age, race, gender or national origin discrimination. In other words, he is a piece of shit.
If you are that much of an idiot that you need someone to spoon-feed you an explanation of how Paul's stated position on this issue is so ridiculous and offensive, read this excellent piece that was published in Salon today:
Yes, go ahead and twist Paul's idea that it's not the function of the Federal government to enforce these things into him being a bigot who would still like to see whites and blacks living a segregated existence, especially when the most coherent sentence in that entire Salon article you posted was...
Perhaps I am misreading Paul.
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.
"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."
You Paul detractors are again dwelling in fantasyland where you sound the false alarm that a vote for Paul will bring us back to Jim Crow, all the while ignoring that Paul is about the only one speaking to the biggest issue of institutionalized racism today...that being the government literally bringing drugs into minority communities, then coming down all too harshly on those who partake through the racist powers of the court system.
End result being, you are once again missing the actual boat here.
There is a very big difference between opposing Jim Crow laws (which forced segregation) and being in favor of the Civil Rights Act, which did much more good than just outlaw forced segregation. According to Paul, a private business owner should have the right to say that he is not going to hire Blacks or even serve them food in his restaurant. The same owner could sexually harass his employee with no civil recourse or fire an employee after he found out the employee was not a Christian.
If you actually read that article and still do not understand this, you are either brainwashed or incapable of reading and comprehending.
Is there even a single quote from Paul in that article? It's all slanted conjecture. I don't know about yours, but that's what my comprehension pointed out.
Classic Paul supporter deflection. They can't comprehend the truth about Paul's ideology (cognitive dissonance-related), so they counter with "But, but, but, the other guy did this". We're not talking about the other guy. This is a Ron Paul thread.
And our current president claims the right to assassinate anyone. Don't ask why, it's his secret and he's not telling. You can't win an argument about "rights" with that kind of blood in your corner. All of these clowns except one claim the right to murder at will and to commit the supreme international crime. The choice isn't complicated.
What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul's BS ideology? Man up and discuss Paul, if you can.
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation,
Is there even a single quote from Paul in that article? It's all slanted conjecture. I don't know about yours, but that's what my comprehension pointed out.
Oh, so the part you highlighted about Paul supporting that the CRA repealed Jim Crow is also conjecture, right? Can't have it both ways.
Classic Paul supporter deflection. They can't comprehend the truth about Paul's ideology (cognitive dissonance-related), so they counter with "But, but, but, the other guy did this". We're not talking about the other guy. This is a Ron Paul thread.
You and I get different truths from this. I don't see someone who doesn't care about children and poor people here. I see someone I disagree with. Personally, I am in favor of some government hospitals and plenty of private encouragement. I would no sooner lose a hospital than firehouse. I don't believe Dr. Paul would either, we just disagree on how to fund them most efficiently.
Classic Paul supporter deflection. They can't comprehend the truth about Paul's ideology (cognitive dissonance-related), so they counter with "But, but, but, the other guy did this". We're not talking about the other guy. This is a Ron Paul thread.
You and I get different truths from this. I don't see someone who doesn't care about children and poor people here. I see someone I disagree with. Personally, I am in favor of some government hospitals and plenty of private encouragement. I would no sooner lose a hospital than firehouse. I don't believe Dr. Paul would either, we just disagree on how to fund them most efficiently.
Hey, I appreciate you discussing something substantively rather than just pointing a figure at the "other". Reasonable minds can def disagree.
What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul's BS ideology? Man up and discuss Paul, if you can.
Uhm, you must have missed it. Paul's BS ideology includes rule of law in places you seem to ignore (perhaps you don't care about brown people). Let's discuss how Paul would instantly put an end to the decapitating mobs running around Mexico supplying us with pot. Let's discuss how Paul would have dealt with Qaddafi. It doesn't include arming Libyan rebels. Then let's talk about his position on SOPA and the Internet, the reason so many of us are still employed. Let's talk about him opening up competing currencies, so we can be secure in our belongings in these changing global Internet times. Let's talk about how he feels about sanctions on developing nations and how it affects their poor. Let's talk about what he would do with the CIA, and their current war on Iranian scientists among other activities. Let's talk about the Fed. Let's talk about Occupy Wall Street. Let's talk about the tea party. I don't know where you got the idea I'm not willing to talk...
Comments
I'm just making a point that up until then, the US was pretty much isolationists. Does he really state he was against WWII involvement, or more so what followed and the complete reversal of isolationism?
Yes, congress oked action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What Paul believes is that the US can/should get involved in foreign entanglements IF congress declares war.
He opposes Iraq/Afghanistan because congress did not declare war.
"Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990...."
And on and on. The point being is he is not against invading Haiti or any other place, he just wants Congress to declare war first.
So he's against the War Powers Act? He should just say so. Maybe he has. I agree that Paul's ideas should be discussed. However, after discussing them, the vast majority of his ideas should be rejected.
What was the question?
How's states rights working out so far regarding the war on drugs? Medical, decriminalization, mandatory minimums reduced... looks like the only place where progress is being made. You disagree?
As far as your other stuff, please stop calling names and making shit up. Paul certainly believes in helping the sick, the disagreement is over how best to pay for it. Talk about crazy...
Not making shit up....he has stated numerous times that charity will pick up the slack for the uninsured, then he tells anecdotes about how church charities took care of people when he was practicing. it is a pipedream that charities will be able to take care all of the poor.
No one is arguing that. Seriously. I know you don't want to hear it.
If you are that much of an idiot that you need someone to spoon-feed you an explanation of how Paul's stated position on this issue is so ridiculous and offensive, read this excellent piece that was published in Salon today:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/
This is Paul's big chance to prove he is a legit candidate.
Santorum's last stand.
Will Bauchmann's ground work pay off, or is she toast?
Romney has a chance to wrap things up before they start with a big win.
Jon Huntsman, who is he again?
Newt Gingrich, no organization, no strategy, will this boost his book sales?
Rick Perry, is he still running?
Herman Cain, starting to look better all the time.
Pawlenty 2016!
Yeah homie, I don't care about kids being able to eat. And an article about how black people run fast is equal to sending the greatest army on earth on illegal murdering sprees.
That's a grim list.
Yes, go ahead and twist Paul's idea that it's not the function of the Federal government to enforce these things into him being a bigot who would still like to see whites and blacks living a segregated existence, especially when the most coherent sentence in that entire Salon article you posted was...
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
You Paul detractors are again dwelling in fantasyland where you sound the false alarm that a vote for Paul will bring us back to Jim Crow, all the while ignoring that Paul is about the only one speaking to the biggest issue of institutionalized racism today...that being the government literally bringing drugs into minority communities, then coming down all too harshly on those who partake through the racist powers of the court system.
End result being, you are once again missing the actual boat here.
which group does soulstrut like more
Ya'll eating chicken wings we eating lobster and shrimp
There is a very big difference between opposing Jim Crow laws (which forced segregation) and being in favor of the Civil Rights Act, which did much more good than just outlaw forced segregation. According to Paul, a private business owner should have the right to say that he is not going to hire Blacks or even serve them food in his restaurant. The same owner could sexually harass his employee with no civil recourse or fire an employee after he found out the employee was not a Christian.
If you actually read that article and still do not understand this, you are either brainwashed or incapable of reading and comprehending.
And our current president claims the right to assassinate anyone. Don't ask why, it's his secret and he's not telling. You can't win an argument about "rights" with that kind of blood in your corner. All of these clowns except one claim the right to murder at will and to commit the supreme international crime. The choice isn't complicated.
Is there even a single quote from Paul in that article? It's all slanted conjecture. I don't know about yours, but that's what my comprehension pointed out.
Classic Paul supporter deflection. They can't comprehend the truth about Paul's ideology (cognitive dissonance-related), so they counter with "But, but, but, the other guy did this". We're not talking about the other guy. This is a Ron Paul thread.
Hard to read with the Confederate flag draped over your face, so it's probably the former.
What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul's BS ideology? Man up and discuss Paul, if you can.
Oh, so the part you highlighted about Paul supporting that the CRA repealed Jim Crow is also conjecture, right? Can't have it both ways.
You and I get different truths from this. I don't see someone who doesn't care about children and poor people here. I see someone I disagree with. Personally, I am in favor of some government hospitals and plenty of private encouragement. I would no sooner lose a hospital than firehouse. I don't believe Dr. Paul would either, we just disagree on how to fund them most efficiently.
Hey, I appreciate you discussing something substantively rather than just pointing a figure at the "other". Reasonable minds can def disagree.
Uhm, you must have missed it. Paul's BS ideology includes rule of law in places you seem to ignore (perhaps you don't care about brown people). Let's discuss how Paul would instantly put an end to the decapitating mobs running around Mexico supplying us with pot. Let's discuss how Paul would have dealt with Qaddafi. It doesn't include arming Libyan rebels. Then let's talk about his position on SOPA and the Internet, the reason so many of us are still employed. Let's talk about him opening up competing currencies, so we can be secure in our belongings in these changing global Internet times. Let's talk about how he feels about sanctions on developing nations and how it affects their poor. Let's talk about what he would do with the CIA, and their current war on Iranian scientists among other activities. Let's talk about the Fed. Let's talk about Occupy Wall Street. Let's talk about the tea party. I don't know where you got the idea I'm not willing to talk...