john9blue wrote: Iliad wrote: john9blue wrote:
Iliad wrote:I'm loving the sudden awkward silence about Ron Paul's newsletters.
haven't they already been discussed to death?
but keep thinking you're right and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. next time we decide to ignore you, you can pretend once more that you have the REAL truth if it makes you happy.
Thanks for being objective once again, Johnblue! Next time you pretend to be a neutral observer we might go along with as well.
I'm really confused at how you managed to spin, me putting forward a criticism of Ron Paul, backing it up with sources, and then not have enough anyone even attempting to refute it, as somehow me
I love you john, I honestly do. You wander in arguments, adopt a condescending tone with such ease as though you were born with it, complain how everyone( read; everyone who is left wing or atheist) is being illogical and leave before god fucking forbid you should prove what you're saying. Please tell me, john, how am I ignoring reality? The facts about Ron Paul's newsletters are easily searchable and it seems someone else, let's call him thinirishy, decided to ignore those facts. But then again facts do have a liberal bias. (Now I've quoted Colbert, now johnny is going to be maaad)
objective? i'm a ron paul fan, no denying it.
my problem is that you took our refusal to debate with you about the newsletters as evidence that we had nothing to say and no way to defend paul. the truth is that the newsletters are well known by almost everyone here, and we have discussed them before (maybe you missed it).
No, I took evidence as the sudden shifting of the topic of debate from Ron Paul's profits as evidence. I have seen it often enough wwhen debating religion, when arguments would be silently ignored or abandoned.
john9blue wrote:HOWEVER, because you seem to be especially upset to the point of dissing me for no reason, i will explain very clearly why the ron paul newsletters will not change my vote. for the newsletter to affect my vote, i would have to believe the following statements:
Not particularly angry, just pointing your shtick which apparently is dissing you now.
john9blue wrote:- the racist statements represented ron paul's actual views: extremely debatable, seeing as he didn't even write them, and even if he knew about them he may have simply allowed it in order to gain more supporters. but even assuming that this IS true...
And you're okay with that? It's all quite simple, the Ron Paul newsletters were endorsed by him and some of his closest advisors worked on it. Either Ron Paul is a racist, or he is incompetent to the point he couldn't run a newsletter and there was a conspiracy against him by his closest staff, or as you said he allowed the newsletter to run for profit, or to attract supporters.
That may have been a prudent political move back in the 80's, 90's, he would've attracted the the fringe political supporters he needed to support his rather fringe ideas. Don't act too surprised that he isn't going to go mainstream now though, because as it turns out using racism as a political platform isn't great long term.
In any case, Ron Paul is either a racist, incompetent or a political whore. Ron Paulites pride that their cult leader stands for his virtues, but the fact is Ron Paul, under your assertion he sold out to the crazies where others would've sold out to the companies.
john9blue wrote:- ron paul's views on race today are the same as they were back then: racism was very common 50 years ago. today, almost everyone agrees that racism is bad. clearly people's views can change over time based on what is seen as acceptable. it is not at all out of the question that, since publication, ron paul has changed his mind and now believes that racism is bad.
Hahahaha. Oh wow, the mental acrobatics you are willing to make.
Firstly it was not written in the 50's, 60's, it was written in the ancient history of 80's or 90's. A time where writing that approximately 90-95% of black people in DC were criminal was not really a defensible or societally acceptable.
Secondly, I'm loving it that it's not out of the question that a presidential candidate has come to the opinion that racism is bad.
Thirdly, Ron Paul held (supported, sponsored, exploited whatever verb floats your boat) a racist opinion. While you are right, that the public would not have batted an eye 60 years or so, it does make him unelectable today. It's a toxic view point and Ron Paul can't just cry that he's all probably not a racist anymore.
john9blue wrote:- ron paul's racism would affect his actions as president: doubtful. a good example of this is abortion- paul personally hates abortion, yet he would allow states to make their own abortion laws, even if they decide to keep it legal. his libertarian principles are so firm that he would not single out a single group to discriminate against. it would be contrary to the very meaning of libertarianism.
- ron paul's racist actions as president would be bad for our country: although this seems obviously true, in the long run it's very difficult to say whether racist actions against minorities (whom are steadily increasing in number) would necessarily be bad for the long-term prosperity of our country.
Spoken like a clueless white, heterosexual, straight, man. Oh I'm sorry i was aware you prefer to call yourselves Libertarians. Thanks for showing your colours and your lack of compassion for anything other than yourself. The president could be a racist, but that means those minorities should just pull themselves by the bootstraps, right johhny? But then again the libertarian approach to social problems is about the same as of the bussinessman walking past the homeless man on his way to work. The mere existence of them makes him vaguely uncomfortable but at no point does he actually care.
john9blue wrote:so in order for one to accept that the newsletters are a reason to not vote for paul, one has to accept all 4 of these statements, and all 4 of them are likely false.
calm the f*ck down.
Yeah, I'm not accepting those bullshit goalposts that you happened to set. Ron Paul could be a racist, which would be a bad thing even if you don't particularly care about the minorities, and trust me the Ron Paul newsletters don't focus on only one, and I'm really struggling to comprehend that I'm even have to argue about this point. The fact is that Ron Paul is incompetent of running a newsletter, either unable to check on its progress or have his closest staff work with his views in mind. Also not a great sign. Or the Ron Paul knowingly profited from a racist newspaper and that's going to hurt him fairly hard, everywhere but the fairly deep south. Those are the statements one has to consider, and while you may be able to perform very impressive acts of cognitive dissonance I quite doubt the non Paul fanatics would be quite as willing.
Ron Paul's going to get fucked, but I have no delusions about the delusions of Ron Paulites.