thegreekdog wrote:
FYI - Andrew Sullivan is gay.
No shit, Sherlock.
Moderator: Community Team
Gillipig wrote:Symmetry wrote:
I dislike his homophobia and racism, for a start."...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[180]
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"[178][187]
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[178][188]
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[189][190]
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”[179][191]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy
I seriously doubt he wrote that. Not because I think he's a saint, but because I don't think he's an idiot. Which is what you would have to be to write that and then run for office.
Symmetry wrote:Because it's the kind of message libertarians would subscribe to? It's pretty clear he approved it and had it sent out under his name.
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Because it's the kind of message libertarians would subscribe to? It's pretty clear he approved it and had it sent out under his name.
Where's the evidence he approved it and had it sent?
Just because it was sent; just because it had his name on it; does not mean he approved or "had it sent."
Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr" – while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.[178][179][189]
When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[180][181][182] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[182][193] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[182][193] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[194][195][196]
An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters.[197][198] During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported[199] that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it."[199] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.[200]
Symmetry wrote:The links can be easily found,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy
Symmetry wrote:Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.
You're right, he's a racist pig.
PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...
Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.
and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.
But autism is largely genetic in its basis.
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.
You're right, he's a racist pig.
Symmetry wrote:No shit, Sherlock.
thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.
You're right, he's a racist pig.
I'm sure you're being sarcastic. I give him the benefit of the doubt (like I do with everyone else) unless it's proven that he actually wrote the newsletters. If he had actually written (or approved after reading) the newsletters, there would be evidence that he did so. Since there is no evidence other than disgruntled former employees
thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure you're being sarcastic.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.
TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters
Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.
You're right, he's a racist pig.
I'm sure you're being sarcastic. I give him the benefit of the doubt (like I do with everyone else) unless it's proven that he actually wrote the newsletters. If he had actually written (or approved after reading) the newsletters, there would be evidence that he did so. Since there is no evidence other than disgruntled former employees
What would convince you? You don't believe evidence from Paul or the people who worked on the letters...
stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure you're being sarcastic.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic.
So many issues were published according to the site Symmetry posted, that I don't believe he didn't know the tone "his" article was taking. "His" because it was his name on those columns.
Even if he didn't put the specific words on those pages, he had to know what type of publication he was at; not many publications would tolerate the types of things that were credited to his byline.
So when I said "too many issues," you can substitute "editions" for "issues" or "articles" for "issues" if it helps you understand.
It wasn't one pamphlet as it seemed you guys were discussing. It was a series of racist pig commentaries that had his name on them.
I'd forgive him a pamphlet with the excuse he hadn't given it approval.
I cannot forgive an entire series of similar trash with his name on it UNLESS he had taken folks to court for using his name on that series of trash when he saw it come out.
However, we've gone off-topic, so to turn it back, "protecting the guilty" seems to be a flaw of all political parties (not just the main 2).
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...
Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.
and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.
But autism is largely genetic in its basis.
The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...
Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.
and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.
But autism is largely genetic in its basis.
The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?
Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.
thegreekdog wrote:I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?
Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.
correlation != causation.
Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.
So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.
stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.
Didn't I read someone say this guy is Libertarian, not Republican? Didn't he and his campaign try to spin stuff for a few years till someone broke ranks? During the spin years, in other words, they were sort of protecting the guilty.
Politicians in general do that, and it's not new. Remember the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was about protecting the guilty, too, until Mr. Smith came along and refused to do that.
So, "protect the guilty" is a fundamental flaw of the Republican party, even though it's not isolated to the Republican party.
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?
Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.
correlation != causation.
Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.
So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.
Not really. The "net" to which you refer had some pretty big holes and gaps in coverage... thus the new era.
And, pollution was rampant until regulations. It still is, but because we operate under a "prove it is dangerous" instead of "prove its truly safe" paradigm, we keep playing catch up.
stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.
Didn't I read someone say this guy is Libertarian, not Republican? Didn't he and his campaign try to spin stuff for a few years till someone broke ranks? During the spin years, in other words, they were sort of protecting the guilty.
Politicians in general do that, and it's not new. Remember the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was about protecting the guilty, too, until Mr. Smith came along and refused to do that.
So, "protect the guilty" is a fundamental flaw of the Republican party, even though it's not isolated to the Republican party.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?
Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.
correlation != causation.
Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.
So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.
Not really. The "net" to which you refer had some pretty big holes and gaps in coverage... thus the new era.
And, pollution was rampant until regulations. It still is, but because we operate under a "prove it is dangerous" instead of "prove its truly safe" paradigm, we keep playing catch up.
Nevertheless, profit and money aren't evil.
PLAYER57832 wrote:and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil.
Democrats always remind me of that old Reboot episode where Enzo, getting access to the core functionality of the CPU, slows down the processes of everyone else in the desire to be the smartest one.
"We are helping," everyone says as they only caused the problem to get worse.
Or in other words, the road to HELL is paved with "good intentions."
The root of evil is placing the self over that of everyone else. The pursuit of money is not in and of itself the root of evil, but when that pursuit is done at the expense of everyone else, it is.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users