The case against Dr. Paul

Tokorona said:
You didn't even look at the links, did you?
Click to expand...

Did too.

None of them would lead me to believe that:

racist

homophobic

bastard

,could be considered content worth responding to.


Remember, you are arguing that posts containing content are being ignored and this was the example given as evidence.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Did too.

None of them would lead me to believe that:

racist

homophobic

bastard

,could be considered content worth responding to.


Remember, you are arguing that post containing content are being ignored.
Click to expand...

If we, as a forum community, decided that it is, should it be?
 
 
Tokorona said:
Let me bold what you missed.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently neither you nor the first one to post this quote from another forum bothered to read the articles cited and just read the headlines written by the one that was quoted.

Please follow the link titled: is STILL making racist remarks, and find anywhere in the Salon article that says anything about racist remarks.

You were boondoggled. You wanted to believe so you did not check the source you were supplying.


Like I said. Non-content is to be ignored.
 
How about the other points? And.

his is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Click to expand...

Not racist. Riight. Even if he didn't write him, he let them get released on his newspaper. However, we have something else:

Letter for donations

Signed by Ron Paul. "Upcoming Race War." "Jewish lobby that plays Congress like a harmonica..."

.. gee. Wonder what THAT is.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Well, apparently neither you nor the first one to post this quote from another forum bothered to read the articles cited and just read the headlines written by the one that was quoted.

Please follow the link titled: is STILL making racist remarks, and find anywhere in the Salon article that says anything about racist remarks.

You were boondoggled. You wanted to believe so you did not check the source you were supplying.


Like I said. Non-content is to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Direct quote from Paul from that article:

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked. Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious ... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."

That sentiment just doesn't pass the smell test, half-hearted caveat at the end notwithstanding.

IMO, the worst about Paul is his hypocrisy. He calls himself a strict constitutionalist at the same time as he sponsors legislation designed to do an end-run around the constitution.
 
IMO, the worst about Paul is his hypocrisy. He calls himself a strict constitutionalist at the same time as he sponsors legislation designed to do an end-run around the constitution.
Click to expand...

Which is a major reason why The Cato Insistute,"Reason" magazine,and other mainstream Libertarian organizations have pretty much turned their backs on Ron Paul.
 
Utterly dumbfounding that the race card is played against someone who believes in individual rights.


Another classic example of Orwell's words.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Utterly dumbfounding that the race card is played against someone who believes in individual rights.


Another classic example of Orwell's words.
Click to expand...

Then please explain all the racists statements made in the Paul Newletters?
You keep dodging this issue.
I know why. If he is not a racist then he messed badly in allowing those News letters out or he cynically let them go out to get the support of White Supremists groups.
He either agrees with the newsletters,he screwed up badly in letting them be published, or he allowed them published in a cynical ploy for support. There is no other possibilities,and any of them prove that Paul is not a God Without Fault.And that is what the Paultards cannot admit.
 
dudalb said:
Then please explain all the racists statements made in the Paul Newletters?
You keep dodging this issue.
I know why. If he is not a racist then he messed badly in allowing those News letters out or he cynically let them go out to get the support of White Supremists groups.
He either agrees with the newsletters,he screwed up badly in letting them be published, or he allowed them published in a cynical ploy for support. There is no other possibilities,and any of them prove that Paul is not a God Without Fault.And that is what the Paultards cannot admit.
Click to expand...

He must be a racist.

I would not vote for him if I were you.

 
It took me a long time to figure out what's wrong with Ron Paul's plan. I could not have supported him because he is not a clear secularist, but I was intrigued by some of his thoughts. I was, until I did some research.

I'm only 42, so the worst economic crisis I have lived through was stagflation of the late 1970s. For some reason, it seems like I never had a class in college or high school that discussed the Great Depression in depth.

Many of the policies put in place to protect the US from experiencing another Great Depression are the very policies that Ron Paul wants to eliminate. I think the latest real estate crisis illustrates why banks need strict regulations. Isolationism also contributed greatly to the depression. There is a cost to big government, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, there are many problems with our federal government, but the best approach is to fix the problems, not wipe the slate clean and start over. I fear that if Ron Paul was elected and was able to put his policies in place, Americans would be vulnerable to economic instability like we haven't seen since 1939.
 
ksbluesfan: Ok I my mayor at the university was macroeconomics but I still don't have a clue where did you get those corellations between the time-specific isolationist policies of US and the great depression. Believe me it's preposterous, silly and useless making these assumptions. I mean yeah there are some people who try to connect these things but ohh that's just too simplistic. There were so many old factors we're not facing at the moment and we won't since so many things have changed. I mean... oh c'mon man... face it.. you just can't compare that and say that RP's today's time specific policy ideas will cause that... damn

Actually I just love how some of you guys try to picture RP as a NWO Alex Jones type conspiracy nut. I've read almost everything on RP's ideas about these thing and I can't find anything more that he just beleives in globalism like these people in this video who do seem very pro globalism while RP is against.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4576126608705279626

Just spend the goddamn 17 minutes and finaly accept that RP beleives in globalism efforts and NOT Alex Jones demonic mumbo-jumbo.
 
Last edited:
Patejdl said:
Actually I just love how some of you guys try to picture RP as a NWO Alex Jones type conspiracy nut. I've read almost everything on RP's ideas about these thing and I can't find anything more that he just beleives in globalism like these people in this video who do seem very pro globalism while RP is against.
Click to expand...


"NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
 
Patejdl said:
ksbluesfan: Ok I my mayor at the university was macroeconomics but I still don't have a clue where did you get those corellations between the time-specific isolationist policies of US and the great depression. Believe me it's preposterous, silly and useless making these assumptions. I mean yeah there are some people who try to connect these things but ohh that's just too simplistic. There were so many old factors we're not facing at the moment and we won't since so many things have changed. I mean... oh c'mon man... face it.. you just can't compare that and say that RP's today's time specific policy ideas will cause that... damn

Actually I just love how some of you guys try to picture RP as a NWO Alex Jones type conspiracy nut. I've read almost everything on RP's ideas about these thing and I can't find anything more that he just beleives in globalism like these people in this video who do seem very pro globalism while RP is against.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4576126608705279626

Just spend the goddamn 17 minutes and finaly accept that RP beleives in globalism efforts and NOT Alex Jones demonic mumbo-jumbo.
Click to expand...

Woah. Ease up there friend. Why so defensive? I made it clear that I haven't studied the Great Depression in depth. I come to be educated, not insult anybody. The following link is what led me to my conclusions about isolationism and the depression.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761584403/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States.html

International problems also weakened the economy. After World War I the United States became the world’s chief creditor as European countries struggled to pay war debts and reparations. Many American bankers were not ready for this new role. They lent heavily and unwisely to borrowers in Europe, especially Germany, who would have difficulty repaying the loans, particularly if there was a serious economic downturn. These huge debts made the international banking structure extremely unstable by the late 1920s.

In addition, the United States maintained high tariffs on goods imported from other countries, at the same time that it was making foreign loans and trying to export products. This combination could not be sustained: If other nations could not sell their goods in the United States, they could not make enough money to buy American products or repay American loans. All major industrial countries pursued similar policies of trying to advance their own interests without regard to the international economic consequences.
Click to expand...

If we try to protect America too much through tariffs, it could backfire. I never said that was the only reason for the depression. I understand that it was a combination of many factors. But I also understand that there were a lot of regulations put in place due to the depression.

Ron Paul doesn't come across as a pro-globalism. Here are his words.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst071607.htm
 
ksbluesfan said:
Many of the policies put in place to protect the US from experiencing another Great Depression are the very policies that Ron Paul wants to eliminate. I think the latest real estate crisis illustrates why banks need strict regulations. Isolationism also contributed greatly to the depression. There is a cost to big government, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, there are many problems with our federal government, but the best approach is to fix the problems, not wipe the slate clean and start over. I fear that if Ron Paul was elected and was able to put his policies in place, Americans would be vulnerable to economic instability like we haven't seen since 1939.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve system is what caused a bad recession to become a deep depression.

Milton Friedman: 1976, Friedman won the "Nobel Prize in Economics" "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy." (Wiki)

"I think there is universal agreement within the economics profession that the decline - the sharp decline in the quantity of money played a very major role in producing the Great Depression."

"And, indeed, in my opinion would have been over in 1931 at the latest had it not been that the Federal Reserve followed a policy which led to bank failures, widespread bank failures, and led to a reduction in the quantity of money."
Click to expand...
Milton Friedman PBS interview


But wait! There's more!


"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
Click to expand...
Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom