UNRACIST RON PAUL

[john9blue]

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 ignoring reality.

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).

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:

- 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...

- 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.

- 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.

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.

[CreepersWiener]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YtrD__8 ... AAAAAAAFAA

If Ron Paul isn't a racist, why did he use the phrase: "Because of people like you."

Ron Paul lost the argument because he ran away like a mamby-pamby and cut the interview short.

[Iliad]

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 ignoring reality.

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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

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.

[/quote]
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.

[john9blue]

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.

do you notice how you argue? you didn't disprove anything i said.

the first one you accepted could be false and merely due to paul's failures in managing his newsletter (which hardly make him unelectable)

the second one you avoided by claiming that it was somehow impossible and that he's still unelectable because you said so.

the third and fourth ones you responded to in the exact manner i expected you to: the race card. i wasn't aware that one had to be white to believe that one's racism wouldn't interfere with their political principles? and you went even further: where did heterosexual come in? who even said anything about that?

it's really a shame that my physical characteristics fit in this little category you seem to have for libertarians. maybe if i was black, or female, or gay, then you'd show a little more compassion, because from your post i can determine that you are a racist and sexist who apparently is biased against straight people as well.

the real gem of your post, though, was when you refused to accept my "goalposts" (i.e. logical criteria for your beliefs) and struggled to comprehend why you had to "argue this point" (i.e. defend your baseless beliefs) and cried about my "cognitive dissonance" (i.e. drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence provided).

there is so much bias and worthless baggage in your post that i considered not even responding. did you even watch creepers' video? i bet you didn't, because you're a [insert your sexual preference] [insert your race] [insert your gender] and that's obviously why you believe what you believe!

f you want me to respond to your next post, then i suggest you at least make an attempt to raise your intellectual and conversational levels to the point where i don't feel like i'm wasting my time.

[natty dread]

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.

QFT. He does that all the time!

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.

[john9blue]

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.

QFT. He does that all the time!

i'd ask you for some examples of this, but i don't want to get dragged down into another puerile hissing match.

if you can provide some, though, i'd be pleasantly surprised. backing up your opinions with evidence for a change would be a great christmas gift

[natty dread]

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.

And this guy claims he's not a racist.

[john9blue]

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.

And this guy claims he's not a racist.

didn't you already quote this?

i did not say that racist actions against minorities by our government would necessarily disadvantage them in the long run (e.g. they could receive more popular support from the public), nor did i say that the prosperity of our country was a desirable thing. i'm arguing about the presidency, not what is "wrong" or "right" in the grand scheme of things.

read up on causality and the ideal observer problem in ethics, then come back.

edit: also, like i asked iliad, please make an effort to engage me on a mature level. i've brought myself down to your level many times before, and i'd appreciate if you'd at least make an effort to return the favor by putting that thinking cap on and not spamming stupid posts like these ones.

[natty dread]

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.

Whoa, John. That's some pretty racist opinions you have there!

[john9blue]

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.

Whoa, John. That's some pretty racist opinions you have there!

k, well i'm going to wait for iliad's response, please sit down and let the big boys continue our discussion

[PLAYER57832]

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:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Oh please... only someone fully entrenched in nothing but the right wing agenda would possibly say this. Obama is probably less liberal than Reagan was.... and if it were not Christmas, I would bring up the evidence. As it is.... try listening to some REAL liberal ideas before you start claiming Obama is liberal. Its what honesty and education require, to be aware of those ideas with which you disagree and why people come to those ideas, not just those you like.

Per the racist bit... I am waiting until after Christmas to look into this. No elections are pending here in my area, so I have time to decide.

[rockfist]

Most of my ideas are what people would categorize as right wing, with some notable exceptions. I've never pretended otherwise.

That doesn't change the fact that Obama is moving our country left at a time where in almost every instance it should be moving right. If the people really agreed with his agenda the right track/wrong track numbers would be very different and his popularity would be higher.

If you mean that Obama is not a Classic Liberal, I agree 100%. He is an American Liberal, which is vastly different. If you mean he is not on the left to far left of an economic scale then you will have to provide evidence because I call BS and I've sited some reasons why.

Government tries to do far too much in this country - and once it gets its nefarious hands on stuff it never relinquishes it. It is the black hole of liberty and Obama is expanding the event horizon to include new generations.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YtrD__8ke8&feature=g-u&context=G2ca4a84FUAAAAAAAFAA

If Ron Paul isn't a racist, why did he use the phrase: "Because of people like you."

Ron Paul lost the argument because he ran away like a mamby-pamby and cut the interview short.

did he?

But in the uncut version released on CNN’s website, talk of the newsletters comes at the end of the eight-minute interview, and Paul’s departure appears much less abrupt. In between the cuts in the originally broadcast interview, Borger continues to ask the same questions about whether Paul made money off the newsletters, and when he moves to take his microphone off, it seems the interview had been coming to a close anyway.

Watch the original broadcast version, via Mediaite. Paul’s remarks begin at the 1:20 mark.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/unfairl ... suggested/

even if he did walk off, good for him. he answered the question 3 times, but of course the media has to keep asking again and again. Ron Paul would be an idiot to keep repeating his answer over and over and over and over again...

In the original interview broadcast on CNN, Borger asked Paul whether he ever read the content of the newsletters and if he objected to any of it.

“Not all the time, on occasion, we talked about this twice,” Paul replied. “I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it.”

Borger then asked Paul about reports he had made $1 million dollars off of the newsletters in 1993. Paul said he was still practicing medicine at the time and said, “I’d like to see that money.”

There was a cut, then Borger asked, “So, you read them but you didn’t do anything about it at the time?”

Paul, getting agitated, responded, “I never read that stuff…I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this and CNN does every single time.”

“When you get the answer, it’s legitimate that you take the answers I give,” Paul said. “I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them. That is the answer.”

Borger continued to ask him about it and there was another cut, at which point Paul unbuttoned his jacket and reached for the microphone, ending the interview.

dont fall for the smear campaign so easily.

[Iliad]

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.

do you notice how you argue? you didn't disprove anything i said.

Do you notice how you argue? You didn't disprove anything I said.

Man the johhblue school of debating is easy.

the first one you accepted could be false and merely due to paul's failures in managing his newsletter (which hardly make him unelectable)

the second one you avoided by claiming that it was somehow impossible and that he's still unelectable because you said so.

How did I not disprove your points? They were literally these:
Ron Paul isn't racist, it's just those working for him who are racist.

Even if he is racist, he probably isn't one now.

Even he is racist now, that doesn't mean he will be racist in the future.

Even if he is racist in the future, that doesn't mean it will be too bad.

Of course I wasn't letting you just get away with that, that's not how logic works. You do love to use that word, but your previous post had very little semblance of it.

the third and fourth ones you responded to in the exact manner i expected you to: the race card. i wasn't aware that one had to be white to believe that one's racism wouldn't interfere with their political principles? and you went even further: where did heterosexual come in? who even said anything about that?

Of course you expected it, john. You are so logical and above us peons, it's like a game of chess to you, you can see all of this 5 moves ahead. Also you're doing your best to keep Ron Paul away from all those black pieces.

I was simply pointing out your position of privilege. I love how that was such a hot button that launched into the tirade below, you even going as far to call me racist and sexist. But the absolute kicker is that you are complaining about the perceived racism against you, (why doesn't anyone think of the poor repressed white man?), while trying to downplay the significance of racism. Because that racism obviously won't affect you and I think I already gave a pretty fitting metaphor for the Libertarian approach to societal problems.

Since I mentioned my thesis like 4 times in my last post and you still ignored it, while accusing me of ignoring your post no less, here goes. The reason I pointed out that you are white, male, heterosexual, and I was thinking of adding cis, is that you are not in a position where you will be discriminated. Yet there you were proclaiming as your last straw, that discrimination wouldn't hurt the country that much. You're not going to be affected by Ron Paul repealing the Civil Rights Act, you won't be denied service in cafes, not allowed to be open about your sexual preferences for fear of losing your job, not having access to information or operations that affect your body.

It was very rich, hearing that discrimination isn't too bad for the long term, hearing it from someone who won't be discriminated. Please try and steer this to affirmative action, or any argument about the poor white man. I fucking beg of you.

it's really a shame that my physical characteristics fit in this little category you seem to have for libertarians. maybe if i was black, or female, or gay, then you'd show a little more compassion, because from your post i can determine that you are a racist and sexist who apparently is biased against straight people as well.

Hahaha. It keeps getting better. If you were black, female, or gay you would not have posted:

- 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.

That does happen to be fairly racist, or at the very least normalising racism which is what you were doing in the first place.

Oh and under your accusation, I must fucking hate myself. Three times over. The irony continues, I was not discriminating, rather pointing out how your own assertion that racism doesn't have terrible consequences, while being in a position where racism would obviously not affect you, is laughable. Almost illogical even. Coming back to irony: you bring up compassion, but obviously are lacking in it as your last of 4 straws to defend Ron Paul asserted that racism isn't terribly important nor does it have long term consequences, clearly highlighting your lack of compassion to those who may be suffering due to the effects of racism.

But who will think of the poor white man!

the real gem of your post, though, was when you refused to accept my "goalposts" (i.e. logical criteria for your beliefs) and struggled to comprehend why you had to "argue this point" (i.e. defend your baseless beliefs) and cried about my `cognitive dissonance" (i.e. drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence provided).

Hahahahahaha.
Ron Paul isn't racist, it's just those working for him who are racist.
Even if he is racist, he probably isn't one now.
Even he is racist now, that doesn't mean he will be racist in the future.
Even if he is racist in the future, that doesn't mean it will be too bad.

Yeah that's a load of crock. In any case I carefully adressed each point and showed how Ron Paul's racism or exploitation of racism is not a quality in a leader. I also clearly showed that those less fanatic ot the cult of Paul were not going to follow your "super logical goalposts".

The trouble you are running into, my friend, is that when just chiming in you can simpl attribute the titles logical and illogical to arguments or people and dissapear. When actually arguing this is a lot harder. I can't wait for your next attempt.

there is so much bias and worthless baggage in your post that i considered not even responding. did you even watch creepers' video? i bet you didn't, because you're a [insert your sexual preference] [insert your race] [insert your gender] and that's obviously why you believe what you believe!

Man that comment really fucking stung deep. God fucking forbid you face some real discrimination.

Another tidbit of advice: and this is connected to your hate of Steward and Colbert. Simply being more uptight and and drab, doens't make you more logical, which in turns makes you righter. For that you actually have to string coherent arguments.

f you want me to respond to your next post, then i suggest you at least make an attempt to raise your intellectual and conversational levels to the point where i don't feel like i'm wasting my time.

You can't stay away from that dead horse can you? Let's repeat this again, being more uptight doesn't mean your "intellectual and conversational levels" are higher. It simply being you happen to be boring and wrong. Or as I said Libertarian.

Truth is, john we're arguing on an internet forum based on a game that's very loosely "inspired" by a world domination board game. Of course we're fucking wasting our time. I still however strung together an argument which dismantled yours, which you in turn ignored because you felt it was beneath you. Too bad you can't see the actually socially significant forest for all the light-hearted trees.

[Phatscotty]

Again Iliad, here is the first post of the thread.

Perhaps your efforts would be better spent if you concentrated on what a candidate says and does, rather then what someone who is not the candidate wrote 30 years ago.

[john9blue]

the first one you accepted could be false and merely due to paul's failures in managing his newsletter (which hardly make him unelectable)

the second one you avoided by claiming that it was somehow impossible and that he's still unelectable because you said so.

How did I not disprove your points? They were literally these:
Ron Paul isn't racist, it's just those working for him who are racist.

Even if he is racist, he probably isn't one now.

Even he is racist now, that doesn't mean he will be racist in the future.

Even if he is racist in the future, that doesn't mean it will be too bad.

Of course I wasn't letting you just get away with that, that's not how logic works. You do love to use that word, but your previous post had very little semblance of it.

i said that it was required to believe all four of those things to have a good reason to not vote for paul. i never said that i guaranteed all four of them to be true.

if i were to assign rough probabilities to each of the points, it would be something like:

- the racist statements represented ron paul's actual views: 10%

- ron paul's views on race today are the same as they were back then (given the above is true): 75%

- ron paul's racism would affect his actions as president (given the above is true): 50%

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

you are falsely assuming that i believe racism to be good for the country. i just put that fourth point in there to make sure that the conclusion (the newsletters mean ron paul would be bad for this country) was directly implied from the premises.

the third and fourth ones you responded to in the exact manner i expected you to: the race card. i wasn't aware that one had to be white to believe that one's racism wouldn't interfere with their political principles? and you went even further: where did heterosexual come in? who even said anything about that?

Of course you expected it, john. You are so logical and above us peons, it's like a game of chess to you, you can see all of this 5 moves ahead. Also you're doing your best to keep Ron Paul away from all those black pieces.

I was simply pointing out your position of privilege. I love how that was such a hot button that launched into the tirade below, you even going as far to call me racist and sexist. But the absolute kicker is that you are complaining about the perceived racism against you, (why doesn't anyone think of the poor repressed white man?), while trying to downplay the significance of racism. Because that racism obviously won't affect you and I think I already gave a pretty fitting metaphor for the Libertarian approach to societal problems.

Since I mentioned my thesis like 4 times in my last post and you still ignored it, while accusing me of ignoring your post no less, here goes. The reason I pointed out that you are white, male, heterosexual, and I was thinking of adding cis, is that you are not in a position where you will be discriminated. Yet there you were proclaiming as your last straw, that discrimination wouldn't hurt the country that much. You're not going to be affected by Ron Paul repealing the Civil Rights Act, you won't be denied service in cafes, not allowed to be open about your sexual preferences for fear of losing your job, not having access to information or operations that affect your body.

It was very rich, hearing that discrimination isn't too bad for the long term, hearing it from someone who won't be discriminated. Please try and steer this to affirmative action, or any argument about the poor white man. I fucking beg of you.

this is ironic and contradictory to the point of laughter. you say that i'm not in a position to be discriminated against... but you discriminated against me in your VERY LAST POST for being white, heterosexual, and male.

what don't you people understand about living in a post-racial society? i don't like discrimination against minorities and neither does paul (who BY THE WAY, strongly opposes some laws that disproportionately affect minorities). i also don't like discrimination against whites (in the form of affirmative action, etc.). my personal characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with my views on discrimination. the fact that you brought them up shows how regressive and biased your way of thinking is.

there is so much bias and worthless baggage in your post that i considered not even responding. did you even watch creepers' video? i bet you didn't, because you're a [insert your sexual preference] [insert your race] [insert your gender] and that's obviously why you believe what you believe!

Man that comment really fucking stung deep. God fucking forbid you face some real discrimination.

Another tidbit of advice: and this is connected to your hate of Steward and Colbert. Simply being more uptight and and drab, doens't make you more logical, which in turns makes you righter. For that you actually have to string coherent arguments.

that's not even close to the reason why i feel that stewart and colbert make poor sources of news. they are poor sources of news because they spin everything with humor and their own personal beliefs. they are fine for entertainment, but when they claim to be objective journalists, i have a problem.

also, you would definitely not call me uptight and drab if you knew me in real life.

[Juan_Bottom]

Could you please explain how spreading the wealth through government redistribution is right wing?

I would call this argument near-sighted and stupid. Republicans sent all the wealth from the Lower and Middle classes directly to the Upper Class during the Bush years. Hell, they even worked to get the Chinese and others to devalue our currency, to help sell American assets like factories and mines to foreign corporations. Of course they claimed it would create Jobs for Americans, but it didn't happen that way.
We don't have to quote numbers here for you to know that I'm right.

[john9blue]

well, in some ways bush didn't have a right-wing fiscal policy

[rockfist]

Bush had one of the five worst fiscal policies I have seen in a President. Obama is worse.

[Phatscotty]

Could you please explain how spreading the wealth through government redistribution is right wing?

I would call this argument near-sighted and stupid. Republicans sent all the wealth from the Lower and Middle classes directly to the Upper Class during the Bush years. Hell, they even worked to get the Chinese and others to devalue our currency, to help sell American assets like factories and mines to foreign corporations. Of course they claimed it would create Jobs for Americans, but it didn't happen that way.
We don't have to quote numbers here for you to know that I'm right.

JB that was an inside joke and not meant to be taken seriosuly. Sorry rock for gettin you into this

[Juan_Bottom]

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.

[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. Before that, this country had 54 straight months of job growth, even in the aftermath of 9-11. Also you cannot lay the major factor of the real estate crash at Bush's feet, when it's Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd who took the regulations off of the big banks and also pushed for people to get houses that they had no way of paying for long term. Sure he took advantage of 9-11 with Iraq, but does that even compare to other presidents and their decisions to go to war/escalate in Vietnam? Does Bush really compare to other eras where tax rates were 90%? How about presidents that promised to keep us out of a war, then immediately sent us to war (wilson). What about FDR, who prolonged the depression far longer than any other country in the world and saw unemployment rates of 20% and higher? Bush's terms don't even compare, and he was re-elected compared to many other 1 term presidents. That doesn't mean he did an awesome job or anything, but he did well enough. What about mortgage rates at 18% and stagflation like under Jimmy Carter? Did anyone have to wait for 3 hours just to get a maximum limit of 5 gallons during Bush's terms? Doesnt even compare.

You can only have that opinions because #1 you don't even know what hard times are like, and #2 "George Bush brought us the worst economy since the great depression" was the big lie repated a million times and got Obama elected. Well, the economy has gotten far worse since 2007, so this must be the worst worst econom since the great depression.

How about debt and gov't spending? You cant even compare Bush to Obama.


What about a president confiscating everyone's gold like FDR? Did anyone have the president agents knock on their doors during Bush's terms and demand they hand over all their money or else go to jail? not even comparable.

[Juan_Bottom]

god

FUCKING

DAMNITT


I cannot handle all of the stupid fucking stupid

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. Before that, this country had 54 straight months of job growth, even in the aftermath of 9-11. Also you cannot lay the major factor of the real estate crash at Bush's feet, when it's Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd who took the regulations off of the big banks and also pushed for people to get houses that they had no way of paying for long term.

GRRR
You know what Barney Frank is up to today? He was on NPR on Tuesday talking about his retirement, and the mistake he made with the housing credit. He knows where his mistakes were, and he's writing a new bill that will allow low-income families to get a rebate or reduced rate for RENTALS. Of course, he also laid some blame at the feet of the Capitalist-Darwinist bankers who profiteered from the housing credits. But that's not important. The fact is, that the Republicans had many warnings that the housing market was going to crash. And they had complete control of all three branches of the Government.
I know what everyone's thinking. . . How did they have control of the Judicial Branch? Look at how many conservative federal judges were appointed under George II. It's a record. There's too much f*ck here for me to go into details about everything, but Republicans are sick of never having support for anything, so they bandied together and pushed a shitload of retirements off until they had a conservative president who would appoint conservative judges to replace them.
Now, where did George II admit to ever going wrong? His book certainly doesn't provide any examples.

To me though, I think that the Republicans did nothing about the warnings of a housing crash because of a combination of absurd stupidity, and greed. Aren't Conservatives the ones who bitch about too much government regulation? I see no reason for them to want to regulate banks when it stands against what they preach about, which is a Capitalistic-Darwinist society. Not that it matters, because if Bush hadn't added several trillion dollars to our nations deficit, we would have done a much better job of weathering the storm. His lack of foresight is a major problem that Americans will deal with for generations.

To your point of Job Growth, that's a "duh" point. George II ordered an illegal war for oil against a nation that did not threaten us. And he paid for it the same way that FDR paid for his Depression-era policies, which is printing money and taking loans. OF COURSE there's going to be job growth, we were sending hundreds of thousands of workers over seas and running the American War Machine back home. HOWEVER unfortunate, sooner or later those loans would come due. Sooner or later, that job growth was going to reverse on itself. And it did in 2008.

Sure he took advantage of 9-11 with Iraq, but does that even compare to other presidents and their decisions to go to war/escalate in Vietnam?

Yeah, it's pretty much the same. George Bush murdered thousands, perhaps a million people in the name of EXXON, BP, CONOCO and others. This kind of Neo-Conservatism is frustratingly perverse, and it's equally perverse to see you defending it. He bankrupted us and sent a decades worth of American youth to a war zone. . . IT'S NOT OK
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 69610.html
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html

Does Bush really compare to other eras where tax rates were 90%?

When people read about the problems of Truman, or Eisenhower's presidencies, what they read about is the Red Scare. They read about accusations, the hollywood black list, and other thought crimes that were popular tools of the day. They read about American economic expansion. They read about secret spy programs. But they don't read all about how Truman or Eisenhower fucked everything, bankrupted America, and declared war on an innocent country. That is Bush's legacy. You're welcome to try to post facts and make an argument here, but I'll f*ckin' come back ten times stronger.

How about presidents that promised to keep us out of a war, then immediately sent us to war (wilson). What about FDR, who prolonged the depression far longer than any other country in the world and saw unemployment rates of 20% and higher?

While both FDR and Wilson promised not to go to war, then did anyway, you're a fucking loony if you think that WWI and WWII are comparable to George Bush's war-for-corporate-profit. FDR's America was attacked by the Japanese. Then the Germans declared war on us. We didn't declare war or attack either one of them first. And we didn't fight them for a natural resource. We gave their lands back to them.
And with Wilson, bless his heart, he took the time to craft a way to end all wars. Germany prayed for an honorable surrender under Wilson's 14 points. The League of Nations was then supposed to provide a way for nations to peacefully end their disagreements. But because of European Jerkyness, Wilson pulled us out of the League of Nations to avoid being pulled into another fucking war. damn it
Do you really need a history lesson?

FDR's New Deal may or may not have extended the Great Depression. As far as I know, Scholars are still debating that, and it's important to note that the Depression was worldwide. America was not the world's breadbox or machine shop. Furthermore, though you're right that the Depression lasted longer in the US; By this time half of the world was spending money building up for war. It seems stupid to compare Warlike-Germany in 1939 to Isolationist-America in 1939.
What you can't tarnish is that fact that FDR was loved during his time and that love continues today. That says a lot about his policies. And personally, I don't care if the New Deal did prolong the Depression in the USA. FDR was doing everything human to help the meek, and he did it in a way he was certain was also in his country's best interest. That's the Jesus lesson in this.
Back to Bush, what's the Jesus lesson in bombing Iraqi civilians for profit?

What about mortgage rates at 18% and stagflation like under Jimmy Carter? Did anyone have to wait for 3 hours just to get a maximum limit of 5 gallons during Bush's terms? Doesnt even compare.

Does compare. There haven't been that many presidents over such a long period of time that we can't compare them.
As a man, Jimmy Carter is one of the nicest.... he's definitely one of my favorite politicians. However, as the President, he was God-Aweful and weak. Again, personally, I don't know how American's expected his presidency to go well. I do love his stance against social-engineering and government expansion, but that's hardly the point.

Yeah, during the Carter Years people waited in line for fuel, and there were rules about when you could get it and how much you could have. And no, I wasn't there. But at least Jimmy Carter didn't kill anyone to get more of it. George Bush killed innocent people for oil while we still had plenty. And he lied about it. And once, he said that God told him to attack Iraq. Fucking awesome.
Besides this, why do you believe that we should have unrestricted access to Earth's limited resources anyway?

So Jimmy Carter had fuel lines, and George Bush had $4 fuel. The reason gas cost so much during Bush's presidency is because he stupidly invaded Iraq. The Bush administration got permission from Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq. Then it got the Saud's promise to keep fuel costs down once we did. . . but once we were irreversibly committed, the Saud's jacked up the price. "No sweat" said the Neo-Conservatives, "because we will just pump out cheap oil from Iraq's wells!" But no, the Saudi's said "no, that's Iraq's oil." And the oil companies we promised those oil fields to decided that they were making too much money doing what the Saud's told them to do, so they wouldn't risk taking over the oil fields.
Because of this, George Bush ordered Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to pump out a shitload of cheap oil for us (that's how we ended the Carter Fuel crisis). "f*ck you Bush, I'm with OPEC" was Chavez's reply. And that is why the media attacked Chavez so much back in the day.

Hey, you know what the difference between Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush is?

Hugo Chavez was democratically election.

You can only have that opinions because #1 you don't even know what hard times are like, and #2 "George Bush brought us the worst economy since the great depression" was the big lie repeated a million times and got Obama elected. Well, the economy has gotten far worse since 2007, so this must be the worst worst economy since the great depression.

How about debt and gov't spending? You cant even compare Bush to Obama.

Ok, this is all fucked and stupid. The Washington Times has it's own graph. I call it "Holy Graph of Obvious."
Everyone remembers that the first thing Obama did when elected, after erasing a shitload of Bush's Imperial PD's was cut $150 billion from government spending. The following year he cancelled thousands of orders for new boats, planes, and artillery for our military. On the other hand, Bush invaded two countries and swelled up the size of the Federal Government., He created the domestic spy agency, the Department of Homeland Security. So immediately I am suspicious of your stupid-looking graph.
According to the Washington Post, Bush-era policies increased our national debt by $5.07 TRILLION DOLLARS, while Obama policies add $1.44 trillion in debt. Also, a point of note, is that a fair portion of Obama's debt was temporary and caused directly by Bush's incompetence. Obama's economy saving stimulus and temporary tax breaks are two examples.
Finally, since the Republican's lost control of Congress, they've done everything they can do to keep Democrat's from lowering our nation's debts. They've had a record number of filibusters. And they force "compromises" on every issue while blaming Obama for not getting anything done. It's fucking retarded.
Sure, you've go to be willing to compromise and you've got to be able to bring the parties together to get shit done. But I imagine that's hard to do when the other party is fighting every proposal and then blaming you for not doing anything. . . even though Obama has severely reduced government spending by almost 4 trillion dollars, apparently. Over and over again we hear the same sound bite "It's about defeating Obama."
Anyway, Congress sets the budget, not the president.

[Iliad]

the first one you accepted could be false and merely due to paul's failures in managing his newsletter (which hardly make him unelectable)

the second one you avoided by claiming that it was somehow impossible and that he's still unelectable because you said so.

How did I not disprove your points? They were literally these:
Ron Paul isn't racist, it's just those working for him who are racist.

Even if he is racist, he probably isn't one now.

Even he is racist now, that doesn't mean he will be racist in the future.

Even if he is racist in the future, that doesn't mean it will be too bad.

Of course I wasn't letting you just get away with that, that's not how logic works. You do love to use that word, but your previous post had very little semblance of it.

i said that it was required to believe all four of those things to have a good reason to not vote for paul. i never said that i guaranteed all four of them to be true.

if i were to assign rough probabilities to each of the points, it would be something like:

- the racist statements represented ron paul's actual views: 10%

- ron paul's views on race today are the same as they were back then (given the above is true): 75%

- ron paul's racism would affect his actions as president (given the above is true): 50%

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

...
Yeah this remains completely irrelevant. Those aren't four things that one must believe, and I already pointed out the 'racist, incompetent, or whore' situation that Ron is in, to not vote for him. These are 4 increasingly desperate straws. Apparently you're reducing yourself to a rather bizzarre game of probability. I'm sorry but I really don't care about what you think are the percentages that Ron paul is probably a racist, but but won't be in the future and so on.

you are falsely assuming that i believe racism to be good for the country. i just put that fourth point in there to make sure that the conclusion (the newsletters mean ron paul would be bad for this country) was directly implied from the premises.

You quite directly stated that discriminatory laws and regulations created or allowed by the government wouldn't be too adverse. That one is going to stay in the record for a fucking while. Also, jesus fucking christ, are you even reading my posts?

The reason I pointed out that you are white, male, heterosexual, and I was thinking of adding cis, is that you are not in a position where you will be discriminated. Yet there you were proclaiming as your last straw, that discrimination wouldn't hurt the country that much. You're not going to be affected by Ron Paul repealing the Civil Rights Act, you won't be denied service in cafes, not allowed to be open about your sexual preferences for fear of losing your job, not having access to information or operations that affect your body.

It was very rich, hearing that discrimination isn't too bad for the long term, hearing it from someone who won't be discriminated. Please try and steer this to affirmative action, or any argument about the poor white man. I fucking beg of you.

this is ironic and contradictory to the point of laughter. you say that i'm not in a position to be discriminated against... but you discriminated against me in your VERY LAST POST for being white, heterosexual, and male.

Oh I'm sorry, are you discriminated now? Would you like me to call a therapist? I absolutely fucking love that you find me, pointing out that a privileged member of society not at threat to be persecuted by society is proclaiming that discrimination wouldn't be too hurtful for the country. Of course you don't, you won't face it and I was pointing this out and how you should for a moment step back and consider your position of privilege when making statements like that. Apparently I am basically literally Hitler right now. And it seems you lack the mere compassion to consider the effects of discrimination on others, but again, libertarian. But the mere notion of that, of you actually accepting and realsing the flaws left in the system drove you up the fucking wall, to the point you're feeling persecuted?

I can repeat myself and ground my keys into dust, you're not reading a fucking thing from my argument.

what don't you people understand about living in a post-racial society? i don't like discrimination against minorities and neither does paul (who BY THE WAY, strongly opposes some laws that disproportionately affect minorities). i also don't like discrimination against whites (in the form of affirmative action, etc.). my personal characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with my views on discrimination. the fact that you brought them up shows how regressive and biased your way of thinking is.

Hey guys, racism is dead! John has decreed it! You claim not to like discrimination against minorities, but the truth is, and you plainly stated yourself is that you don't really care. I mean, long term it probably wouldn't be too bad for them, isn't that right?

For the last fucking time, your personal characteristics do make a difference when you're trying to normalise racism and proclaim that discriminatory regulations would not hurt that much, while at the same time you are at absolutely no risk of any of those discriminatory regulations hurting you. Look up privilege, I'm not going to do your education for you.

there is so much bias and worthless baggage in your post that i considered not even responding. did you even watch creepers' video? i bet you didn't, because you're a [insert your sexual preference] [insert your race] [insert your gender] and that's obviously why you believe what you believe!

Man that comment really fucking stung deep. God fucking forbid you face some real discrimination.

Another tidbit of advice: and this is connected to your hate of Steward and Colbert. Simply being more uptight and and drab, doens't make you more logical, which in turns makes you righter. For that you actually have to string coherent arguments.

that's not even close to the reason why i feel that stewart and colbert make poor sources of news. they are poor sources of news because they spin everything with humor and their own personal beliefs. they are fine for entertainment, but when they claim to be objective journalists, i have a problem.

also, you would definitely not call me uptight and drab if you knew me in real life.

No, you sound like a blast!

There's a thing I've noticed when debating you. When you simple chime in about how base and illogical everyone is, you can sort of get away with flying way above the actual arguments and making minimal connection to them. When actually debating, less so. You're still completely stuck on that white heterosexual male comment and I find that fucking fascinating as you try to excuse and normalise discrimination in any way you can for dear Paul, while trying to act as indignant and offended at perceived discrimination at the same time. One could almost entertain the thought that you might lack decent compassion and empathy.
I'm going to quote this, because this quote just warms my heart to no end.

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.

[/quote]

[john9blue]

i said that it was required to believe all four of those things to have a good reason to not vote for paul. i never said that i guaranteed all four of them to be true.

if i were to assign rough probabilities to each of the points, it would be something like:

- the racist statements represented ron paul's actual views: 10%

- ron paul's views on race today are the same as they were back then (given the above is true): 75%

- ron paul's racism would affect his actions as president (given the above is true): 50%

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

...
Yeah this remains completely irrelevant. Those aren't four things that one must believe, and I already pointed out the 'racist, incompetent, or whore' situation that Ron is in, to not vote for him. These are 4 increasingly desperate straws. Apparently you're reducing yourself to a rather bizzarre game of probability. I'm sorry but I really don't care about what you think are the percentages that Ron paul is probably a racist, but but won't be in the future and so on.

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.

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.

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.