UNRACIST RON PAUL

[Woodruff]

The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

I find it astounding that you consider most of the significant policies that he has implemented to be left-leaning. As to the Republicans...have you LOOKED at the contenders yet?

[Phatscotty]

Welcome back Woodruff

[Woodruff]

Right now, that's whatever.
What we want to see.... what the people need to see, is Rockfist's list of the top five worst presidential fiscal policies. I for one, am waiting on abated breath!

Were it my list, off the top of my head, I would think Bush II would obviously be number 1onewith Hoover in there somewhere.... and then some of those incompetents who took control of the White House before and after Abraham Lincoln. I mean, it's not my list though. I'm just excited.

Dude, I am no George Bush lover, but that's just a bunch of crap. The economy did not fall apart until about 6 months after 2006 elections, when the Democrats took Congress.

It wasn't Bush's fault, it was the Democrats in Congress. But it's not the Republicans in Congress, because it's Obama's fault. Good Lord man, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument than that!

[rockfist]

The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

I find it astounding that you consider most of the significant policies that he has implemented to be left-leaning. As to the Republicans...have you LOOKED at the contenders yet?

His economic policies such as continually extending unemployment and wanting to raise taxes on the rich are leftist...as to keeping Guantanimo (sp) open, continuing the war in Afghanistan, continuing with the Patriot act, bombing Libya those are "right" in a neocon sense. I am not a neocon, I am a small government conservative. Foreign intervention is costly in human and economic terms.

I will vote for whoever is the most likely to pursue small government low tax policies, I have not looked at the candidates too much, because I KNOW its not Obama who will support small government and low taxes.

[Phatscotty]

Right now, that's whatever.
What we want to see.... what the people need to see, is Rockfist's list of the top five worst presidential fiscal policies. I for one, am waiting on abated breath!

Were it my list, off the top of my head, I would think Bush II would obviously be number 1onewith Hoover in there somewhere.... and then some of those incompetents who took control of the White House before and after Abraham Lincoln. I mean, it's not my list though. I'm just excited.

Dude, I am no George Bush lover, but that's just a bunch of crap. The economy did not fall apart until about 6 months after 2006 elections, when the Democrats took Congress.

It wasn't Bush's fault, it was the Democrats in Congress. But it's not the Republicans in Congress, because it's Obama's fault. Good Lord man, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument than that!

If I've said it once I've said it a million times, it's everyone's fault (which is you can't blame it on one person.) Surely you have to blame the person who signed the legislation more than the person who was stuck with the legislation...but blame is not the point. The only point is to show why other besides bush are responsible. That grants Bush is responsible as well.

[Woodruff]

The Republicans would have to nominate the biggest reactionary fiscal and social conservative to be as far right as Obama is left.

Why do you even say nonsensical things like this? Obama has some "left" positions, absolutely. FAR left? Not particularly. And if you believe that at least half of the serious Republican candidates this coming election AREN'T at least as far right as Obama is to the left, then I don't believe you're looking at the situation very objectively.

Ok he may not have been the most liberal, but he was hardly middle of the road with his voting record meaning the Republicans would have to nominate someone quite conservative to be as far right as he is left:

I find it astounding that you consider most of the significant policies that he has implemented to be left-leaning. As to the Republicans...have you LOOKED at the contenders yet?

His economic policies such as continually extending unemployment and wanting to raise taxes on the rich are leftist...as to keeping Guantanimo (sp) open, continuing the war in Afghanistan, continuing with the Patriot act, bombing Libya those are "right" in a neocon sense. I am not a neocon, I am a small government conservative. Foreign intervention is costly in human and economic terms.

I will vote for whoever is the most likely to pursue small government low tax policies, I have not looked at the candidates too much, because I KNOW its not Obama who will support small government and low taxes.

Then you need to look, because you're fooling yourself. I don't say that as an endorsement of Obama (far from it), because I consider him to have been a massive failure. However, he is no less likely than any of the current crop of Republicans (with the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman) to do what you are referring to. To claim not to be a neo-con while supporting neo-con candidates puts the lie to the claim.

[Woodruff]

Right now, that's whatever.
What we want to see.... what the people need to see, is Rockfist's list of the top five worst presidential fiscal policies. I for one, am waiting on abated breath!

Were it my list, off the top of my head, I would think Bush II would obviously be number 1onewith Hoover in there somewhere.... and then some of those incompetents who took control of the White House before and after Abraham Lincoln. I mean, it's not my list though. I'm just excited.

Dude, I am no George Bush lover, but that's just a bunch of crap. The economy did not fall apart until about 6 months after 2006 elections, when the Democrats took Congress.

It wasn't Bush's fault, it was the Democrats in Congress. But it's not the Republicans in Congress, because it's Obama's fault. Good Lord man, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument than that!

If I've said it once I've said it a million times, it's everyone's fault (which is you can't blame it on one person.) Surely you have to blame the person who signed the legislation more than the person who was stuck with the legislation...but blame is not the point. The only point is to show why other besides bush are responsible. That grants Bush is responsible as well.

Blame is ALWAYS the point with you, Phatscotty. That's all you're about, actually...the blame. Except that in the case of Bush, you do tend to try to avoid assigning blame. That's why everyone considers you such a dishonest f*ck.

[thegreekdog]

Iliad - are you ignoring Phatscotty's posts in favor of bashing john9blue?

Would you prefer to have a debate with me over the implications of the racist newsletters published by Ron Paul? Let me know and we can discuss. Alternatively, you can continue to have your discussions where you can puff up your own already over-inflated ego while simultaneously misunderstanding everything about Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party in favor of fun quips and simplified newspaper headlines.

[rockfist]

Woodruff,

I haven't claimed to support anyone. I've claimed that I oppose Obama. I've claimed that I will support the most small government low tax candidate with a chance of being elected. I believe that Obama is worse than any of the possible Republican nominees (some of which are not good at all).

[Aradhus]

If you found out for certain that Paul really was racist, would it stop you from voting for him? I mean, compared to some of the serial lying scumbag sociopaths who have been in the whitehouse is just being a bit racist really that awful?

Anyway, the worst thing about Ron Paul isn't that he's racist, it's that he an idealist, that can be a scary trait in a politician and a pretty rare one these days. These days most politicians are corrupt pragmatic, something which is reflected nicely in todays world.

[thegreekdog]

If you found out for certain that Paul really was racist, would it stop you from voting for him? I mean, compared to some of the serial lying scumbag sociopaths who have been in the whitehouse is just being a bit racist really that awful?

Anyway, the worst thing about Ron Paul isn't that he's racist, it's that he an idealist, that can be a scary trait in a politician and a pretty rare one these days. These days most politicians are corrupt pragmatic, something which is reflected nicely in todays world.

The worst thing about Ron Paul is that a newsletter was published under his name and the newsletter contained racist and bigoted ramblings and Ron Paul did not know about it at the time and thus did nothing about it. Simply put, that's it.

Is it a bad thing? You bet. Does it make him unelectable? It depends on how he deals with it. So far, he's apologized for not checking the newsletter on a regular basis and being informed about it (back in 2008). I think that seems okay.

[Iliad]

you really don't even understand the whole basis of my argument.

when i said that "racism could be good", that was one statement that could have derailed the train of thought that leads to not voting for paul based on the newsletters. if you had actually read my last post, you would have found out that i believe the odds of racist actions actually being good for our country is about 10% (as a very rough estimate; it could be any low number). but no, you like to take things out of context and make me a bigoted strawman who hates everything good and pure.

That's not what you said, you appended those percentages, just clearing that up.

It's great to hear that it's only 10% now, though I'm sure any member of a minority would be sprinting down to the poll booths as we speak.

You quite bluntly stated, that to not vote for Ron Paul you would have to accept that apparently a racist Commander in Chief might not necessarily be hurtful to the country. As one last desperate argument, you tried throw that question to a maybe. I didn't force you to do that, you leapt there on your own accord. Just as as you used a homophobic slur in this thread without any instigating.

i'm not going to respond to the entire rest of your post because literally all of it is based on the false assumption that i don't think state-sponsored racism is "that bad". plus, you'll be more likely to actually read my post this time, since it's short.

You tried to argue that a racist president being hurtful to the country isn't a given, I'm sorry but that was desperate and indefensible and very rich coming someone not in a position to be hurt by discrimination. I was simply quoting you directly john, it seems you can't handle debates.

Ironic in that you accuse of not adressing your post, when you only now focus on the 'incompetent, racist, whore' situation I put forward in my first post, and how you flew off into a frothy rage after I happened to call you white, heterosexual and male.

and of the three options you presented, i choose "incompetent" because he was practicing medicine at the time and wasn't able to read every word of every newsletter that was published under his name.

And was completely unaware of its contents despite his aides working on them,. All while plugging them, even in 1995, all without any information about their actual contents. While the newsletters claimed to represent his views and well had his named. All of this throughout the 80's and 90's. That's political incompetence on a monumental scale, john. I've heard more believable ignorance claims from the editor in chiefs of Murdoch papers. I can't wait to see what his staff will do, considering you're claiming Ron Paul is incapable of overseeing their actions, though.

If Ron Paul didn't have the time to read them, he really should not have slapped his name on them, plugged them in interviews and collected profits from them. Otherwise, I don't know, they might contains highly incendiary and controversial statements which he doesn't agree with and which would alienate him from other supporters and tarnish his reputation.

I'm glad you're okay with your prophet profiteering from racist newsletters though. That issue alone bypasses any of your 4 statements, which is why I dismissed them in the first place, which you ironically didn't read.

[rockfist]

If I had to venture a guess at what percentage of people have ever told a racist joke or used a racist term in their lifetime I would put it at north of 30%. I do not believe that 30%+ of the population is racist and just because someone was a racist 20 years ago (not saying Paul was) does not mean they are today.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
I haven't claimed to support anyone. I've claimed that I oppose Obama. I've claimed that I will support the most small government low tax candidate with a chance of being elected.

And yet you haven't really bothered to look at them. Given that, as far as you know, Obama may well be the most small-government, low-tax candidate with a chance of being elected. (He isn't, I'm well aware, but my point still stands.)

I believe that Obama is worse than any of the possible Republican nominees (some of which are not good at all).

Of course you believe that, because you haven't bothered to look at the others in-depth. I don't really understand why you seem to enjoy reveling in that ignorance, though.

[Woodruff]

you really don't even understand the whole basis of my argument.
when i said that "racism could be good", that was one statement that could have derailed the train of thought that leads to not voting for paul based on the newsletters. if you had actually read my last post, you would have found out that i believe the odds of racist actions actually being good for our country is about 10% (as a very rough estimate; it could be any low number). but no, you like to take things out of context and make me a bigoted strawman who hates everything good and pure.

That's not what you said, you appended those percentages, just clearing that up.
It's great to hear that it's only 10% now, though I'm sure any member of a minority would be sprinting down to the poll booths as we speak.
You quite bluntly stated, that to not vote for Ron Paul you would have to accept that apparently a racist Commander in Chief might not necessarily be hurtful to the country.

While I certainly agree with you entirely that john9blue likes to pretend to be moderate without actually making a serious attempt at being so, I think I would say that a racist Commander in Chief might not necessarily be hurtful to the country. It's extremely unlikely that the racism would come into play for a large number of his decisions, in my opinion. Or did I misunderstand what you're trying to say?

You tried to argue that a racist president being hurtful to the country isn't a given, I'm sorry but that was desperate and indefensible and very rich coming someone not in a position to be hurt by discrimination.

I'm not really in a position to be hurt by racial discrimination myself, but many of my cadets are, so it is a very important topic to me...and I also do not believe it is a given.

And was completely unaware of its contents despite his aides working on them,. All while plugging them, even in 1995, all without any information about their actual contents. While the newsletters claimed to represent his views and well had his named. All of this throughout the 80's and 90's. That's political incompetence on a monumental scale, john. I've heard more believable ignorance claims from the editor in chiefs of Murdoch papers. I can't wait to see what his staff will do, considering you're claiming Ron Paul is incapable of overseeing their actions, though.
If Ron Paul didn't have the time to read them, he really should not have slapped his name on them, plugged them in interviews and collected profits from them. Otherwise, I don't know, they might contains highly incendiary and controversial statements which he doesn't agree with and which would alienate him from other supporters and tarnish his reputation.

I agree completely with this. This is a big deal.

[rockfist]

Woodruff,
I haven't claimed to support anyone. I've claimed that I oppose Obama. I've claimed that I will support the most small government low tax candidate with a chance of being elected.

And yet you haven't really bothered to look at them. Given that, as far as you know, Obama may well be the most small-government, low-tax candidate with a chance of being elected. (He isn't, I'm well aware, but my point still stands.)

I believe that Obama is worse than any of the possible Republican nominees (some of which are not good at all).

Of course you believe that, because you haven't bothered to look at the others in-depth. I don't really understand why you seem to enjoy reveling in that ignorance, though.

I know something about each of the candidates, but for me it seems like a waste to get to know someone like say Michelle Bachman's position on everything, given that she has very little chance of getting the nomination.

Just before we vote in our local primary in Wisconsin, I will study the candidates in more detail. I will also compare the Republican candidate (and Libertarian candidate) to Obama after the nomination is secured, but from what I know about each of the Republican candidates, they are almost to a man/woman more supportive of small government and low taxes than Obama.

For some reason you are really taking offense that I don't do this sooner, but candidates positions can solidify and evolve during the campaign process; candidates chances of winning the nomination can rise and fall and rise again, as well as their perceived ability to defeat Obama.

[john9blue]

That's not what you said, you appended those percentages, just clearing that up.

It's great to hear that it's only 10% now, though I'm sure any member of a minority would be sprinting down to the poll booths as we speak.

You quite bluntly stated, that to not vote for Ron Paul you would have to accept that apparently a racist Commander in Chief might not necessarily be hurtful to the country. As one last desperate argument, you tried throw that question to a maybe. I didn't force you to do that, you leapt there on your own accord. Just as as you used a homophobic slur in this thread without any instigating.

at first i said that the odds of racist policies being bad for our country was roughly 90%

- ron paul's racist actions as president would be bad for our country (given the above is true): 90%

meaning that the odds of them being GOOD for our country is about 10%

since 100% - 90% = 10%

subtraction: harder than i thought?

also, i never bluntly stated what you said i bluntly stated, and you should quote where i said that, which should be easy because i stated it so bluntly, right?

And was completely unaware of its contents despite his aides working on them,. All while plugging them, even in 1995, all without any information about their actual contents. While the newsletters claimed to represent his views and well had his named. All of this throughout the 80's and 90's. That's political incompetence on a monumental scale, john. I've heard more believable ignorance claims from the editor in chiefs of Murdoch papers. I can't wait to see what his staff will do, considering you're claiming Ron Paul is incapable of overseeing their actions, though.

If Ron Paul didn't have the time to read them, he really should not have slapped his name on them, plugged them in interviews and collected profits from them. Otherwise, I don't know, they might contains highly incendiary and controversial statements which he doesn't agree with and which would alienate him from other supporters and tarnish his reputation.

I'm glad you're okay with your prophet profiteering from racist newsletters though. That issue alone bypasses any of your 4 statements, which is why I dismissed them in the first place, which you ironically didn't read.

firstly, there were a very select few racist remarks in many years of newsletters, and they were written by one person. the newsletters were not even close to racist propaganda, and even someone who read the newsletters semi-frequently may have missed the racism.

secondly, i much prefer an incompetent president with good principles than a competent president with bad principles... though you would probably disagree, because you want a larger government than i do.

[Woodruff]

Just before we vote in our local primary in Wisconsin, I will study the candidates in more detail. I will also compare the Republican candidate (and Libertarian candidate) to Obama after the nomination is secured, but from what I know about each of the Republican candidates, they are almost to a man/woman more supportive of small government and low taxes than Obama.

By their words, or by their voting records? Because I can tell you that with the exception of two of them, they don't match.

For some reason you are really taking offense that I don't do this sooner, but candidates positions can solidify and evolve during the campaign process; candidates chances of winning the nomination can rise and fall and rise again, as well as their perceived ability to defeat Obama.

Yes, I DO actually take offense that you choose to discuss issues that you have no actual knowledge of, that is true. I'm ok with your choice to remain ignorant, but please don't foist that ignorance on the rest of us in the form of your opinion based on that ignorance.

[rockfist]

Instead of complaining about what I don't know, then why don't you enlighten me oh learned one...

[rockfist]

I'd trade a real check to entitlement growth for just about anything...Obama will never do that. There are only two candidates who I think would do it, Ron Paul and possibly Gingrich. Romney would be far to interested in getting reelected as his #1 priority to take on entitlement reform IMO.

[Woodruff]

I'd trade a real check to entitlement growth for just about anything...Obama will never do that. There are only two candidates who I think would do it, Ron Paul and possibly Gingrich. Romney would be far to interested in getting reelected as his #1 priority to take on entitlement reform IMO.

The right to a trial isn't a top priority for you?
The right not to be imprisoned indefinitely without even being charged isn't a top priority for you?
The right of American citizens to not be tortured by their own government isn't a top priority for you?
Campaign finance reform isn't a top priority for you?
Stopping SOPA and what it is going to do to the Internet (removing a large source of free information) isn't a top priority to you?
Repealing the Patriot Act isn't a top priority for you?
Getting ourselves weaned from big oil isn't a top priority for you?
The intended removal of the separation of church and state isn't a top priority for you? (this applies specifically to Gingrich)
Getting the FDA and Homeland Security under control isn't a top priority for you?
Getting an end to what has become incessant police brutality isn't a top priority for you?
Stopping the massive attempts to limit who can vote in elections isn't a top priority for you?
Ending the ridiculous nature of the War on Drugs (which actually does nothing to end drug use/sale/abuse) isn't a top priority for you?
Doing something about the fact that more U.S. soldiers die from suicide each year than die from combat isn't a top priority for you?

Entitlements are a huge deal that needs to be rectified, no question. And I realize that we all have our own priorities, but I don't honestly see how it can register more highly than those. Most of those just seem far more important to me.

[Woodruff]

Instead of complaining about what I don't know, then why don't you enlighten me oh learned one...

Well that's a hell of a cop-out - I would have expected better of you.

[rockfist]

I'd trade a real check to entitlement growth for just about anything...Obama will never do that. There are only two candidates who I think would do it, Ron Paul and possibly Gingrich. Romney would be far to interested in getting reelected as his #1 priority to take on entitlement reform IMO.

The right to a trial isn't a top priority for you?
The right not to be imprisoned indefinitely without even being charged isn't a top priority for you?
The right of American citizens to not be tortured by their own government isn't a top priority for you?
Campaign finance reform isn't a top priority for you?
Stopping SOPA and what it is going to do to the Internet (removing a large source of free information) isn't a top priority to you?
Repealing the Patriot Act isn't a top priority for you?
Getting ourselves weaned from big oil isn't a top priority for you?
The intended removal of the separation of church and state isn't a top priority for you? (this applies specifically to Gingrich)
Getting the FDA and Homeland Security under control isn't a top priority for you?
Getting an end to what has become incessant police brutality isn't a top priority for you?
Stopping the massive attempts to limit who can vote in elections isn't a top priority for you?
Ending the ridiculous nature of the War on Drugs (which actually does nothing to end drug use/sale/abuse) isn't a top priority for you?
Doing something about the fact that more U.S. soldiers die from suicide each year than die from combat isn't a top priority for you?

Entitlements are a huge deal that needs to be rectified, no question. And I realize that we all have our own priorities, but I don't honestly see how it can register more highly than those. Most of those just seem far more important to me.

Not most of these, but things like foreign policy that I didn't wholly agree with, even tax simplification/reform, and things like that are on the table if I can get "entitlements" in check...and some of those things you listed such as the war on drugs (I don't agree with the way we do it at all) is of less importance to me than entitlement reform; that doesn't mean its not important, its a huge deal and one where I break from many of my conservative brothers and sisters.

Trials, torture ect. are not something I would trade away.

I'm for separation of church and state, but not for the removal of any mention of God in any public facility. Some judges have gone overboard with it and now their is shockingly a backlash (Gingrich, although I wonder if he actually beleives what he is saying here or if he is pandering to the base).

If we go broke because of "entitlements" we will not be able to fix many of the things you listed. A Republican or right wing President who fixed entitlements would have the political capital within his party to fix for instance the war on drugs by taking a Libertarian/left stance on it, which is the only way to fix it without carpet bombing producing countries, IMO.

[thegreekdog]

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate that deals with most of the items on Woodruff's list. I would venture to say he deals with more of the items on Woodruff's list than our current president (specifically the first few).

[Woodruff]

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate that deals with most of the items on Woodruff's list. I would venture to say he deals with more of the items on Woodruff's list than our current president (specifically the first few).

Absolutely he does...and it's not really even close. You may recall my thoughts on Obama's policies since he's held the White House. <grim smile>